MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112783683 · doi:10.3109/01612840.2010.542879

Electroshock: A Discerning Review of the Nursing Literature

2011· review· en· W2112783683 on OpenAlexaff
Cheryl van Daalen‐Smith, John Gallagher

Bibliographic record

VenueIssues in Mental Health Nursing · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies
Canadian institutionsWomen's and Gender Studies et Recherches FéministesYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroconvulsive therapyCompliance (psychology)NursingPsychologyMedicineMEDLINEPsychiatrySocial psychologySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Political science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electroshock, better known as Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT) has sporadically received generous attention in North American Literature. An examination of the nursing literature regarding ECT reveals an expectation for nursing to play an important role in patient education and compliance. Further, while the literature remains somewhat divided on the efficacy of electroshock, there appears to be a pro-ECT bias and an absence of first-person accounts: two areas of importance for nurse researchers and scholars to address.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.419 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIssues in Mental Health NursingSame topicElectroconvulsive Therapy StudiesFrench-language works237,207