Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depicted in this presentation is the relationship of the aims of the original articles in this issue--using theory in a substantive way; introducing a strong focus on the organization as a contributor to patient, provider, and system outcomes; accounting for organizational level; and moving the field toward a view of research utilization as an intermediate, not terminal, outcome--to outcomes research in health services generally and in nursing health services research more specifically. The insights and innovations described in this set of articles contribute significantly to the literature on research use in healthcare, specifically including the need to account more fully for organizational structure and hierarchy than has been the case to date in health services outcomes research, as well as a strong intimation that research use is not only an important intervening variable in the causal chain producing outcomes at the patient, provider, and system levels but also a latent or unobservable variable.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.088 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".