MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1790604326 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v5n9p1

Convenient care clinic nurse practitioner impact analysis

2015· article· en· W1790604326 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Debra R. Wallace, Ellen Beth Daroszewski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingHealth careScope (computer science)Nurse practitionersScope of practiceQuality (philosophy)MedicineBusinessFamily medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent changes in healthcare regulations and the increased availability of health insurance to millions of previously uninsured has created an unprecedented opportunity to provide healthcare outside of the traditional healthcare system such as by nurse practitioners (NPs) in convenient care clinics (CCCs).This study surveyed 59 NPs who practiced at CCCs to explore the impact of their practice. The findings demonstrated that accessibility, convenience, affordability, quality patient care, and treating patient problems were the most impacts. Some of the biggest challenges to CCC practice included lack of care continuity, working alone, limited scope of practice, patient satisfaction and community awareness Overall the impact of NP care provided at CCC had a positive effect and represents a great potential for the expansion of healthcare into the community.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.596
Teacher spread0.420 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice→Same topicNursing Roles and Practices→French-language works237,207→