MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2063492576 · doi:10.1348/135910708x397025

Evidence‐based selection of theories for designing behaviour change interventions: Using methods based on theoretical construct domains to understand clinicians' blood transfusion behaviour

2009· article· en· W2063492576 on OpenAlexaff
Jill Francis, Charlotte Stockton-Powdrell, Martin Eccles, Marie Johnston, Brian H. Cuthbertson, Jeremy Grimshaw, Chris Hyde, Alan Tinmouth, Simon Stanworth

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Health Psychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativeConstruct (python library)Psychological interventionIntensive careContext (archaeology)PsychologyCognitionTheory of planned behaviorIntervention (counseling)Social cognitive theoryMedicineSocial psychologyIntensive care medicineControl (management)PsychiatryEpistemologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.169
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.273
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1690.273
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.007
Bibliometrics0.0260.015
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.329
GPT teacher head0.566
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations234
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Health Psychology→Same topicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare→French-language works237,207→