MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evidence-Based Practice: Issues, Paradigms, and Future Pathways

2011· article· en· W1995751522 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Forum · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarketing buzzFoundation (evidence)Nursing researchEvidence-based practiceNursingHealth careNursing practicePsychologyEngineering ethicsSociologyMedicineAlternative medicinePolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence-based practice (EBP) has become a real buzz word, not only in the discipline of nursing, but in all healthcare professions. EBP has been identified as the foundation of accountable, professional nursing practice and it would seem that few could argue with the apparent benefits; however, debate does exist in the literature about whether EBP can realistically be attained. As such, a critical discourse regarding the future of EBP for nursing needs to occur. One of the key questions to be addressed through this discourse is, "what counts as evidence?" A review of the nursing literature on the concept of EBP will be presented in this paper along with a discussion of several of the issues associated with EBP within the discipline of nursing. I will also present some ideas about the implications of the EBP movement in nursing and examine the future pathways for nursing.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score0.939

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.311
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.199 · 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