MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094425319 · doi:10.1177/136140960300800107

Research fraud: Why nurses should become aware

2003· article· en· W2094425319 on OpenAlexaff
Joyce Kenkre, Martin Semple

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research in Nursing · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsRoyal Canadian Navy
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommitCredibilityAuditBusinessQuality (philosophy)Public relationsInstitutionAccountingPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As treatment and care given to patients should be evidence-based, nurses are becoming more involved in the conduct of research. However, research results based on fraudulent findings can have a serious impact on patient care. It is important, therefore, that nurses know how fraud may be perpetuated so that they do not risk unknowingly abetting or committing fraud themselves. Those who commit such acts stand to lose their academic credibility, the respect of their colleagues, and their livelihood. Mechanisms need to be developed within each institution to facilitate the conduct of quality research that can be audited. Nurses need to be advocates for quality research in the realisation that respect for the research findings will be achieved by respect for the maintenance of standards.

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)0.100
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1000.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.894
GPT teacher head0.741
Teacher spread0.153 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research in NursingSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207