MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009476067 · doi:10.5737/1181912x201e1e11

Évaluation de la qualité de vie liée à la santé et des problèmes de santé prioritaires chez les patients atteints du cancer de la prostate : stratégie de définition du rôle des infirmières en pratique avancée

2010· article· fr· W2009476067 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Denise Bryant‐Lukosius, Gina Browne, Alba DiCenso, Timothy J. Whelan, Amiram Gafni, Alan J. Neville, Jinka Sathya

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Oncology Nursing Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCancerCare ManitobaJuravinski Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGynecologyMedicinePolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Un cadre régissant l’institution et l’évaluation des rôles en pratique infirmière avancée (PIA) souligne l’importance de l’adoption d’une approche méthodique dans le développement de rôles basés sur l’évaluation des besoins de santé des patients. Cette étude visait à déterminer la qualité de vie liée à la santé (QVLS) chez les patients atteints du cancer de la prostate afin de comparer les perceptions, de cerner les problèmes de santé les plus graves et les plus fréquents et enfin, de dégager les perceptions des patients, le tout en vue d’éclairer le développement du rôle en matière de soins de soutien des infirmières de formation avancée en oncologie auprès des patients atteints d’un cancer de la prostate avancé.

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)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.422 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Oncology Nursing JournalSame topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207