MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095702148 · doi:10.1177/0894318403251787

Mis-Takes: Mistakes in the Nurse-Person Process

2003· article· en· W2095702148 on OpenAlexaff
Debra A. Bournes, Frances Flint

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Science Quarterly · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistory, Medicine, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMantraMeaning (existential)Process (computing)Patient safetyNursingHealth careNursing processPsychologyMedicineComputer sciencePsychotherapistPolitical scienceLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This column supports the global mantra to develop mechanisms that address the worldwide crisis in patient safety and demonstrates, using nursing as an example, that the mechanisms currently being developed are too limited. Patient safety initiatives must be expanded to acknowledge and make ways to minimize mis-takes, that is, misconceptions of meaning that emerge when healthcare professionals dismiss, misconstrue, guess, or undervalue patients' perspectives. Commitment to the human becoming school of thought as a guide for practice is suggested as one way to address mis-takes in the nurse-person process.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativelow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.141
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.141
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.028
Scholarly communication0.0180.019
Open science0.0020.014
Research integrity0.0070.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Other

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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing Science QuarterlySame topicHistory, Medicine, and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207