MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2209067850 · doi:10.1097/nan.0000000000000147

What Is Your KVO? Historical Perspectives, Review of Evidence, and a Survey About an Often Overlooked Nursing Practice

2015· article· en· W2209067850 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Infusion Nursing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Medical prescriptionMedicineNursingNursing practiceEvidence-based nursingFamily medicineAlternative medicineHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Like many nursing "sacred cows," the practice of keeping a vein open with a small infusion of intravenous solution does not have clear origins or robust evidence. A survey of Canadian nurses was conducted to determine current practices. More than 50% of respondents reported regularly using a keep-vein-open (KVO) rate between doses of intermittent medication. Frequently, the rate was not specified by the prescriber; in this case, nurses preferred 21 to 30 mL/h. Given the absence of evidence and the frequent use, it is important to ensure that KVO is used properly in the context of a medical prescription or an organizational protocol.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.255
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.235 · 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