MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989476572 · doi:10.12927/hcq..16690

Nursing Best Practice Guidelines: The RNAO Project

2001· article· en· W1989476572 on OpenAlexaffabout
Doris Grinspun, Tazim Virani, Irmajean Bajnok

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsRegistered Nurses' Association of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBest practiceNursingGuidelineAccountabilityHealth careMedicineNursing practiceChristian ministryNursing researchPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Best practice guidelines, although a recent phenomenon, have become a global movement in nursing. Scholars, practitioners, healthcare organizations, governments and the nursing associations have a unique opportunity to enhance quality and demonstrate joint accountability to patients, the healthcare system and the public as a whole. This article offers insight into the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario (RNAO) Nursing Best Practice Guidelines Project. Funded as a multi-year project by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care in 1999, the RNAO project is leading nursing's best practice guideline movement in Canada and reaching others abroad.

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)0.245
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.238
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2450.238
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0080.007
Scholarly communication0.0130.005
Open science0.0060.015
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.353
GPT teacher head0.579
Teacher spread0.225 · 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.

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

Citations37
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207