MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150710973 · doi:10.12927/cjnl.2001.19127

Building Quality Practice Settings: An Attributes Model

2001· review· en· W2150710973 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing leadership · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsRegistered Nurses' Association of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Quality managementNursing practiceClinical PracticeKey (lock)NursingKnowledge managementMedical educationPsychologyComputer scienceProcess managementMedicineBusinessEngineeringOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To practice effectively nurses need an environment that supports quality professional practice. This article describes the development of a model identifying seven (7) key system attributes of a quality practice setting. The defined attributes are essential in supporting professional practice and quality care. The Quality Practice Setting Attributes Model developed by the College of Nurses of Ontario in Canada provides the foundational framework for the Practice Setting Consultation Program (PSCP), a unique quality improvement approach to creating quality practice environments.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.005
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 head0.704
GPT teacher head0.592
Teacher spread0.112 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
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
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing leadershipSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207