A Survey Study of Pediatric Nurses' Use of Information Sources
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This survey study explored use of different information sources among a convenience sample of 113 bedside pediatric nurses. The study was guided by three interrelated concepts: types of information sources, levels of evidence, and computer skill. The Nursing Information Use Survey measured use of information sources, impact of information sources on nursing care, barriers to information, and expectations that a computerized clinical desktop or patient information management system would improve patient care. Significant correlations between use of interpersonal and non-computer-based information and non-computer- and computer-based information supported the conceptual model. Use of traditional, non-computer information sources such as textbooks and print-based journals was higher among baccalaureate, compared with diploma, prepared nurses. Nurses with greater computer and online searching skill used more computer-based information. Findings suggested that strategies to improve nurses' computer and information searching skills may promote use of higher-level evidence in planning nursing 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it