MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Concept Analysis of Human Ecology

2009· article· en· W2121577528 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

VenueNursing Forum · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre de Santé et de Services Sociaux de la Montagne
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOReciprocalCINAHLHuman ecologyEcologyPerspective (graphical)Systems ecologySociologyApplied ecologyMEDLINEPsychologyComputer scienceBiologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human ecology is an umbrella concept encompassing several social, physical, and cultural elements existing in the individual's external environment. The pragmatic utility method was used to analyze the “human ecology” concept in order to ascertain the conceptual fit with nursing epistemology and to promote its use by nurses in clinical practice. Relevant articles for the review were retrieved from the MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and CSA databases using the terms “human ecology,”“environment,”“nursing,” and “ecology.” Data analysis revealed that human ecology is perceived as a theoretical perspective designating a complex, multilayered, and multidimensional system, one that comprises individuals and their reciprocal interactions with their global environments and the subsequent impact of these interactions upon their health. Human ecology preconditions include the individuals, their environments, and their transactions. Attributes of this concept encompass the characteristics of an open system (e.g., interdependence, reciprocal).

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score0.689

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.428 · 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