MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Towards a decision support system for health promotion in nursing

2003· article· en· W2078855860 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

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth promotionPromotion (chess)NursingContext (archaeology)Occupational health nursingPsychologyNursing researchMedicinePublic healthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: This study was designed to investigate what type of models, techniques and data are necessary to support the development of a decision support system for health promotion practice in nursing. Specifically, the research explored how interview data can be interpreted in terms of Concept Networks and Bayesian Networks, both of which provide formal methods for describing the dependencies between factors or variables in the context of decision-making in health promotion. BACKGROUND: In nursing, the lack of generally accepted examples or guidelines by which to implement or evaluate health promotion practice is a challenge. Major gaps have been identified between health promotion rhetoric and practice and there is a need for health promotion to be presented in ways that make its attitudes and practices more easily understood. New tools, paradigms and techniques to encourage the practice of health promotion would appear to be beneficial. Concept Networks and Bayesian Networks are techniques that may assist the research team to understand and explicate health promotion more specifically and formally than has been the case, so that it may more readily be integrated into nursing practice. METHODS: As the ultimate goal of the study was to investigate ways to use the techniques described above, it was necessary to first generate data as text. Textual descriptions of health promotion in nursing were derived from in-depth qualitative interviews with nurses nominated by their peers as expert health promoting practitioners. FINDINGS: The nurses in this study gave only general and somewhat vague outlines of the concepts and ideas that guided their practice. These data were compared with descriptions from various sources that describe health promotion practices in nursing, then examples of a Conceptual Network and a representative Bayesian Network were derived from the data. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlighted the difficulty in describing health promotion practice, even among nurses recognized for their expertise in health promotion. Nevertheless, it indicated the data collection and analysis methods necessary to explicate the cognitive processes of health promotion and highlighted the benefits of using formal conceptualization techniques to improve health promotion practice.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.374 · 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