MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Posing Clinical Questions: Framing the Question for Scientific Inquiry

2001· article· en· W2065742026 on OpenAlexaff
K Ann McKibbon, Susan Marks

Bibliographic record

VenueAACN Clinical Issues Advanced Practice in Acute & Critical Care · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFraming (construction)Clinical PracticePsychologyNursing practicePatient careNursingMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much of nursing practice is (and always has been) based on information generated through inquiry. Finding the best answers quickly and effectively for the questions that arise in the clinical setting facilitates care, increases nursing efficiency, and improves patient outcome and satisfaction. Posing clinical questions also can help nurses identify and fill in gaps in knowledge, keep up with advances in clinical practice, and strengthen interactions with their peers, team members, and patients and their families. Formulating clinical questions that lead to sound, evidence-based answers to resolve clinical problems or direct patient-care decisions takes time and practice. The information in this article will assist nurses to develop the skill of framing clinical questions efficiently and effectively.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.242
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.242
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.393
GPT teacher head0.715
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations26
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAACN Clinical Issues Advanced Practice in Acute & Critical CareSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207