MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Theory‐Driven Approach to Evaluating Quality of Nursing Care

2004· review· en· W2042914215 on OpenAlexaff
Souraya Sidani, Diane Doran, Pamela H. Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Scholarship · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)NursingQuality (philosophy)Outcome (game theory)Nursing theoryHealth careNursing carePsychologyFocus (optics)Management scienceMEDLINEMedicineEpistemologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To review the propositions of a theory-driven approach and to discuss its application to evaluating the quality of nursing care. ORGANIZING FRAMEWORK: The focus in the theory-driven approach to evaluation is on identifying patient, professional, and setting characteristics that affect the processes of care at micro and meso levels, which in turn contribute to outcome achievement. Implications for examining the interrelationships among characteristics, processes, and outcomes are discussed and illustrated with examples from published research. CONCLUSIONS: Determining how these variables influence each other provides a valid and comprehensive understanding of the contribution of nursing within the health care system.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.320
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.211 · 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.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations74
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing ScholarshipSame topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207