MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061149723 · doi:10.1097/ans.0000000000000011

Particularizing the General

2013· article· en· W2061149723 on OpenAlexaff
Sally Thorne, Richard Sawatzky

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Nursing Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPraxisUnderpinningAccountabilityNursing practiceNursingPsychologyEngineering ethicsSociologyMedicineEpistemologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proliferation of demands for accountability and health care quality places nurses under constant pressure to ensure professional practice is evidence-based. The corresponding emphasis on knowledge that pertains to general populations challenges nursing's traditional focus on the uniqueness of each individual patient. Considering how nurses engage with professional systematic thinking processes, we reflect on ways competing agendas in the evidence-based practice environment compromise the professional vision aspired to by an earlier era of nursing model and framework builders. Exploring the scientific thinking underpinning practice evidence, we contemplate implications for applying general knowledge to particular practice, reconsidering options for conceptualizing nursing praxis.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.550
Teacher spread0.481 · 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 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

Citations81
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Nursing ScienceSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207