MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126460777 · doi:10.1016/s0840-4704(10)60127-5

A Review of Evidence on the Reliability and Validity of Minimum Data Set Data

2008· review· en· W2126460777 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeffery W. Poss, Norma M. Jutan, John P. Hirdes, Brant E. Fries, John N. Morris, Gary Teare, Kristen Reidel

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsHomewood Research InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinimum Data SetReliability (semiconductor)Nursing Minimum Data SetSet (abstract data type)Health careValidityQuality (philosophy)Data setData qualityNursing homesNursingPsychologyMedicineComputer scienceBusinessNursing researchNursing Outcomes ClassificationPsychometricsPolitical scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reviews the reliability and validity of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, which is being used increasingly in Canadian nursing homes and continuing care facilities. The central issues that surround the development and implementation of a standardized assessment such as the MDS are presented, including implications for health care managers in how to approach data quality concerns. With other sectors such as home care and inpatient psychiatry using MDS for national reporting, these issues have importance in and beyond residential care management.

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)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.174
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.174
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0120.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.639
GPT teacher head0.552
Teacher spread0.086 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations199
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207