MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096413200 · doi:10.1111/jspn.12029

Nurses’ aims when managing pediatric postoperative pain: Is what they say the same as what they do?

2013· article· en· W2096413200 on OpenAlexaff
Alison Twycross, G. Allen Finley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
FundersSt. George's, University of London
KeywordsPain managementMedicinePediatric nursingPostoperative painPhysical therapyPsychologyNursingAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore nurses' aims when managing postoperative pain and whether reported aims reflect actual practices. DESIGN AND METHODS: Participant observation was used to collect data regarding nurses' (n = 17) pain management practices. Nurses (n = 19) were asked: When managing postoperative pain, what is your overall aim? RESULTS: Around half the participants (n = 10) aimed for patients to be comfortable while others aimed for a pain score of 2-3 (n = 7), or below 5 (n = 2). Observed practices matched aims for just more than half the participants (n = 9). PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: There is evidence of individual variation in practices. This may impact on the care provided.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.300 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations19
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for Specialists in Pediatric NursingSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207