MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037261637 · doi:10.3928/0098-9134-20030801-04

Geriatric Nursing Assessment

2003· article· en· W2037261637 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine Olenek, Teresia Skowronski, Dianne Schmaltz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gerontological Nursing · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationNursingMedicineGerontological nursingPsychosocialNursing processNursing careNursing assessmentGeriatricsConfusionNurse educationMedical educationMEDLINEPsychologyPsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gerontological nursing is a unique area of nursing. The cornerstone of the gerontological nursing process is assessment. In some traditional education models, nurses are taught assessments in general areas, such as cardiology, neurology, urology, and orthopedics. Little emphasis is placed on integrating these systems. A one-day workshop was developed with the objective to further develop the assessment skills of the registered nurse (RN) in continuing care by demonstrating a holistic approach to assessment and care planning. For this workshop, the "giants of geriatric medicine," namely falls, incontinence, confusion, iatrogenic illness, and impaired homeostasis (Cape, 1978) were further developed into a geriatric nursing model to include the psychosocial issues. This model demonstrates a way of assessing and integrating the information known about the resident. To ensure the workshop content was practical for the nurse, existing resident care documentation within the sponsoring organization, The Capital Care Group, was used. Through the education provided in the workshop, the RNs recognized that individualized care is based on full assessment of the resident, integration of the information gathered, and complete documentation.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gerontological NursingSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207