MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076309134 · doi:10.5737/1181912x17415

Ambulatory oncology nursing telephone services: A provincial survey

2007· article· en· W2076309134 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Oncology Nursing Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityLaurentian UniversitySudbury Regional HospitalCancer Care OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDocumentationNursingAmbulatoryService (business)TriageOncology nursingQuality managementMedical emergencyFamily medicineNurse educationBusinessComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A survey of telephone nursing provided through ambulatory oncology programs in Ontario was conducted May to July 2006. Of 38 programs, 58% used primary nurses, 24% used a centralized triage approach, and 18% used a mixed model. About half of programs used protocols (61%), routinely documented calls (55%), and/or provided orientation to telephone nursing (45%). Few programs (29%) monitored telephone service quality. Practice strengths included: improved patient access, early symptom management, and increased continuity of care. Revealed barriers to using protocols were limited access to or awareness of protocols, management of multiple symptoms, inconsistencies with physician practices, concern that protocols replace critical thinking, inadequate time, and lack of electronic protocols. Participants acknowledged the need for electronic documentation, standardized criteria to monitor service quality, and further research to benchmark best practices.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.350 · 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