MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027543318 · doi:10.12968/bjon.2012.21.5.303

Striking the balance: night care versus the facilitation of good sleep

2012· article· en· W2027543318 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

VenueBritish Journal of Nursing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsSurrey Place Centre
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
KeywordsSleep (system call)MedicineNursingAged careDutyDuty of careGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents the key findings from an extensive research project aiming to identify the determinants of poor sleep in care homes. A mixed methods study was conducted in 10 care homes in South East England. This included 2-week daily diaries completed by 145 older residents and interviews with 50 care-home staff. This research demonstrated that the regular surveillance by qualified nurses and care assistants at night seriously impedes the quality of sleep experienced by older people living in care homes. However, nurses and social care workers have a duty of care, which would not be fulfilled if regular checks were not undertaken at night. There is a need for care-home staff to strike a balance between enabling older people living in care homes to have a good night's sleep and adhering to their own professional duty of care.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.295 · 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