MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139500114 · doi:10.12968/bjcn.2015.20.5.233

Factors influencing evidence-based practice for community nurses

2015· article· en· W2139500114 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lisa M Garland Baird, Tess Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Community Nursing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNursingIntuitionNursing practiceClinical PracticeScale (ratio)Community nursingFamily medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Factors influencing the development of evidence-based nursing practice (EBNP) were examined in Prince Edward Island, Canada. An adapted electronic questionnaire was distributed to practicing registered nurses and nurse practitioners (n=68). An analysis of variance revealed a significant difference between nurses' clinical practice setting and the EBNP scale. Significant differences were also found between age and education level when compared with the EBNP subscales where novice nurses were less likely to rely on experience and intuition, and expert nurses with a higher level of education reported being more skilful at synthesising and applying information from research findings into their nursing practice.

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 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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.005
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 head0.553
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.029 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations46
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Community NursingSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207