MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2255969012 · doi:10.1111/jnu.12199

Framework for Evaluating the Impact of Advanced Practice Nursing Roles

2016· article· en· W2255969012 on OpenAlexaff
Denise Bryant‐Lukosius, Elisabeth Spichiger, Jacqueline Martin, Hansruedi Stoll, Sabine Degen Kellerhals, Monica Fliedner, Florian Grossmann, Morag Henry, Luzia Herrmann, Antje Koller, René Schwendimann, Anja Ulrich, Lukas Weibel, Betty Callens, Sabina De Geest

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Scholarship · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess managementRelevance (law)Knowledge managementSustainabilityCitizen journalismManagement scienceMedicineComputer scienceBusinessPolitical scienceEngineering

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)0.257
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.195
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.916

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2570.195
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0190.009
Science and technology studies0.0080.015
Scholarly communication0.0160.012
Open science0.0050.012
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.223
GPT teacher head0.611
Teacher spread0.388 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations196
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Scholarship→Same topicNursing Roles and Practices→French-language works237,207→