MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008098494 · doi:10.1097/nna.0b013e318253565f

Designing Strategies to Implement Research-Based Policies and Procedures

2012· article· en· W2008098494 on OpenAlexaff
Janet E. Squires, Trish Reay, Donna Moralejo, Sandra LeFort, Alison M. Hutchinson, Carole A. Estabrooks

Bibliographic record

VenueJONA The Journal of Nursing Administration · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsAlberta Hospital EdmontonOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAction researchProcess managementAction (physics)Quality (philosophy)NursingComputer scienceManagement scienceBusinessKnowledge managementPsychologyMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organizational policies and procedures are one vehicle for translating research into nursing practice and improving quality and patient and organizational outcomes. However, their existence alone is not sufficient to ensure use. In this article, we describe the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework and how nurse leaders can use the framework to support the implementation of research-based policies and procedures.

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)0.525
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.475
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5250.475
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0140.005
Science and technology studies0.0090.016
Scholarly communication0.0220.022
Open science0.0090.016
Research integrity0.0130.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.478
GPT teacher head0.638
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations16
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJONA The Journal of Nursing AdministrationSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207