MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assistive Computing Devices

2006· article· en· W2022724085 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

VenueCIN Computers Informatics Nursing · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationModalitiesComputer scienceWork (physics)Assistive technologyHealth careHuman–computer interactionNursingMedicineEngineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Healthcare errors among nurses are common because of the fast-paced work environment, in which extensive data must be analyzed and quick decision making is required. Assistive computing devices can help reduce nursing errors by providing timely access to client information and by assisting nurses with client monitoring, decision making, and bedside documentation. The purpose of this pilot study was to determine what assistive computing device features, functions, and input/output modalities nurses would find most useful as support for their nursing duties. Twenty nurses completed a questionnaire that examined their needs and preferences. Data analysis revealed a strong desire for capabilities related to facilitating information access and administering safe medication. The results of this study will be used to develop design criteria for an assistive computing device that will aim to improve the performance of nurses through appropriate information and data support.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.761
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.292 · 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