MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074948570 · doi:10.12927/hcq..16514

Registered Nurses Association of Ontario's Best Practice Guideline as a Tool for Creating Partnerships

2002· article· en· W2074948570 on OpenAlexaffabout
R Devlin, Marg Czaus, Josephine Santos

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsHumber River Regional Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBest practiceGeneral partnershipGuidelineNursingAcute careMedicineHealth careBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Best Practice Guidelines project has been instrumental in facilitating a partnership between an acute care community hospital and two long-term care facilities in northwestern Toronto. This article outlines the challenges experienced in the acute care community hospital in developing partnerships, not just with the two long-term care facilities, but also within the organization. This article also offers insight into the strategies used to overcome the challenges and to support the implementation of the guideline at point of 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.

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)0.085
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.133
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0850.133
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0080.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.324
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207