MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001044233 · doi:10.1332/1744264054851577

Fostering interactions: the networking needs of community health nursing researchers and decision makers

2005· article· en· W2001044233 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence & Policy · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of AlbertaCentre for Global Health ResearchUniversity of Prince Edward IslandUniversity of OttawaWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth CanadaCanadian Health Services Research Foundation
KeywordsFocus groupCommunity healthFunction (biology)Quality (philosophy)Qualitative researchPerceptionNursingPsychologyPublic relationsKnowledge managementSociologyMedicinePolitical scienceComputer sciencePublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

English The purpose of the study on which this article is based was to determine the current extent of linkages among Canadian community health nursing researchers and decision makers and to identify perceptions around the structure and function of potential networks. A qualitative research design was utilised to develop common themes across focus groups, a workshop and key informant interviews. The findings suggest that there is a need for a formal community health network to provide an efficient and timely means to link the expertise required to tackle complex community health policy problems, and to create supports for advancing community health science with relevant and high quality 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 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.848
GPT teacher head0.746
Teacher spread0.102 · 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