MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110993013 · doi:10.1111/2047-3095.12068

Nursing Diagnoses in Inpatient Psychiatry

2014· article· en· W2110993013 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

VenueInternational Journal of Nursing Knowledge · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical diagnosisNursing diagnosisMedicineNursingNursing Outcomes ClassificationPsychiatric diagnosisMEDLINEPsychiatryNursing careFamily medicineNursing researchTeam nursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This study explored how well NANDA-I covers the reality of adult inpatient psychiatric nursing care. METHODS: Patient observations documented by registered nurses in records were analyzed using content analysis and mapped with the classification NANDA-I. FINDINGS: A total of 1,818 notes were examined and contained 46 different patient responses. Twenty-nine patient responses were recognizable as NANDA-I diagnoses at the level of definitions, 15 as diagnoses-related factors, and 12 did not match with any NANDA-I diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that NANDA-I describes the adult inpatient psychiatric nursing care to a large extent. Nevertheless, further development of the classification is important. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: The results of this study will spur nursing research and further classification development.

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 score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.357 · 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