MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1557937950 · doi:10.3928/02793695-20050301-05

Risk Assessment of Forensic Patients Nurses' Role

2005· review· en· W1557937950 on OpenAlexaff
Maxima Encinares, Jim McNamee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForensic scienceRisk assessmentPsychologyMedicineComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the unique roles of forensic nurses is to conduct risk assessments. Establishing a therapeutic nurse-patient relationship helps forensic nurses perform accurate and useful risk assessments. Accurate risk assessments can facilitate formulation of individualized risk management plans, designed to meet patients' needs and ensure public safety. The importance of forensic nurses' knowledge and application of appropriate communication and proper documentation cannot be overemphasized.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.409 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health ServicesSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207