An Evaluation of Neuroscience Nursing Research Published During the Decade of the Brain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to extend a previous evaluation of neuroscience nursing research to an assessment of the research published during the 1990s--the Decade of the Brain. The evaluation was conducted to assess the focus of neuroscience nursing research and to identify research strategies and scientific methods. The Journal of Neuroscience Nursing, Nursing Research, Research in Nursing & Health, and Western Journal of Nursing Research were canvassed. An assessment form developed by the authors was used to evaluate selected articles published between January 1989 and December 2000. The number of neuroscience research studies published in nursing journals increased substantially during the 1990s. The studies focused more on individuals with neurological disorders and less on neurological trauma. The findings demonstrated major changes in subspecialty area, care orientation, and nature of study variables from that observed in the previous evaluation in which acute care and physiological variables were most representative of the pre-1989 studies. As noted in the previous evaluation, the trend toward theory-then-research studies continued and the scientific methods grew more complex.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.118 | 0.321 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.062 | 0.037 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".