MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076305695 · doi:10.1097/anc.0b013e318206e1b4

Making the Literature Palatable at the Bedside

2011· article· en· W2076305695 on OpenAlexaff
Karen Lasby, Donna Dressler-Mund

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Neonatal Care · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineIntuitionNeonatal nursingNursingPediatricsNeonatal intensive care unitPsychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neonatal nurses often draw upon prior experiences and intuition to feed neonates. Such experience and skill vary from nurse to nurse and may not be based on recent research, nor tailored to each neonate's feeding skill. An evidence-based neonatal oral feeding guideline was produced to improve oral feeding practices among nurses and parents. The implementation was initially less than ideal, resulting in poor compliance. A bedside reference poster was designed to serve as a visual succinct reminder of the oral feeding guideline.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.263 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Neonatal CareSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207