MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2126717870 · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-1

Individual determinants of research utilization by nurses: a systematic review update

2011· review· en· W2126717870 on OpenAlexafffund
Janet E. Squires, Carole A. Estabrooks, Petter Gustavsson, Lars Wallin

Bibliographic record

VenueImplementation Science · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaOttawa Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchKillam TrustsKarolinska InstitutetAlberta Heritage Foundation for Medical ResearchFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleAFA Försäkring
KeywordsNursing researchPsychological interventionInclusion (mineral)Observational studyMedicineNorwegianHealth services researchHealth administrationSystematic reviewNursingMEDLINEIdentification (biology)Health informaticsResearch designMedical educationFamily medicinePsychologyPublic healthSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.132
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.132
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.011
Bibliometrics0.0280.025
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.805
GPT teacher head0.762
Teacher spread0.043 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
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

Citations803
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImplementation Science→Same topicHealth Sciences Research and Education→French-language works237,207→