MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070497671 · doi:10.3928/00220124-20061101-03

Evidence-Based Nursing in Clinical Practice: Implications for Nurse Educators

2006· review· en· W2070497671 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMandateNursingMedicineClinical PracticeNurse educatorMEDLINEEvidence-based practiceNursing researchNurse educationNursing practiceEvidence-based nursingPsychologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To improve patient outcomes currently and in the future, it is important that an evidence-based approach to nursing care be incorporated into clinical practice settings. Nurse educators and clinical nurse educators have a mandate to model and facilitate evidence-based nursing through learning activities. Unfortunately, issues present within clinical practice settings have made this approach difficult for registered nurses to fully incorporate into practice. This article outlines issues inhibiting evidence-based nursing, such as time factors, access to information and resources, nurses' research knowledge, skills, and learning opportunities, and the current nursing culture. Strategies for change that can be used by clinical nurse educators to enhance the use of evidence-based nursing in clinical practice areas are also described.

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 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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.289
GPT teacher head0.662
Teacher spread0.373 · 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