MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1895879295 · doi:10.3928/08910162-20080901-06

When No One Has Time

2008· review· en· W1895879295 on OpenAlexaff
Janet Morrison, Per Lindberg

Bibliographic record

VenueAAOHN Journal · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careWork (physics)Economic shortagePublic relationsNursingTechnological changeOccupational safety and healthHRHISPsychologyBusinessMedicineHealth policyPublic healthPolitical scienceComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technological change is a constant in today's workplace, especially the modern health care workplace. The introduction of electronic health records changes workloads, job demands, interactions with other health care professionals, and work roles-all elements that have previously been noted to increase work stress and impact health. Despite the significant changes that accompany computerization, it is seldom studied as a source of stress. Also, the health effects of computerization within health care have not been extensively studied. This article summarizes the potential environmental impact of computerization on workers, with special reference to health care workers, and suggests ways occupational health nurses can monitor the health consequences of new technology and intervene in case of adverse health impact. In many health care organizations, high work pressure and staff shortages make it impractical, and perhaps impossible, to use standard in-depth research methods to investigate this issue. Therefore, several less obtrusive methods that can be triangulated are suggested as an alternative.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.086

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 head0.277
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.217 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAAOHN JournalSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207