Data Mining as a Tool for Research and Knowledge Development in Nursing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to collect and store data has grown at a dramatic rate in all disciplines over the past two decades. Healthcare has been no exception. The shift toward evidence-based practice and outcomes research presents significant opportunities and challenges to extract meaningful information from massive amounts of clinical data to transform it into the best available knowledge to guide nursing practice. Data mining, a step in the process of Knowledge Discovery in Databases, is a method of unearthing information from large data sets. Built upon statistical analysis, artificial intelligence, and machine learning technologies, data mining can analyze massive amounts of data and provide useful and interesting information about patterns and relationships that exist within the data that might otherwise be missed. As domain experts, nurse researchers are in ideal positions to use this proven technology to transform the information that is available in existing data repositories into useful and understandable knowledge to guide nursing practice and for active interdisciplinary collaboration and research.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it