MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039320530 · doi:10.5737/1181912x2013035

Processus d’implantation d’infirmières pivots en oncologie au sein d’équipes locales conjointes (Centre hospitalier-Communauté)

2010· article· fr· W2039320530 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Oncology Nursing Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsCanadian Association of Nurses in OncologyHôtel-Dieu de QuébecUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesGynecologyMedicineArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Implementing oncology nurse navigators or IPOs (which stands for "infirmière pivot en oncologie") is a key element of the Québec Cancer Control Program in order to improve the continuity of care. This qualitative study describes the process of implementing IPOs in teams working both in hospitals and in the community. Several groups of stakeholders (IPOs, physicians, nurses, various health workers, administrators, people with cancer and their families) described how they perceive the functions and effects related to this implementation. After putting results into perspective, we recommend developing measures promoting the dissemination of the role and integration of IPOs in formally defined health teams. We strongly advocate for the continuation of joint efforts in order to define and clarify this complex role.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.381 · 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