MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Consensual Validation of Clinical Practice Model Practice Guidelines

2000· article· en· W2317302191 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Donna Westmoreland, Bonnie Wesorick, Diane Hanson, Kathy Wyngarden

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Care Quality · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationCredibilityClinical PracticeNursing practiceProcess (computing)Quality (philosophy)NursingPatient careNursing processMEDLINEProcess managementMedical educationMedicineComputer sciencePsychologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical Practice Model (CPM) Practice Guidelines facilitate the delivery of consistent, high-quality patient care by clarifying nursing services and supporting the practice and documentation of each step of the nursing process. CPM Practice Guidelines are unique because they are part of an integrated interactive systems thinking framework to support professional practice; they are reviewed and improved routinely using multiple sources of data and are used by hundreds of nurses daily throughout the United States and Canada. Guidelines are developed using a rigorous standardized format and process. Consensual validation is an important part of establishing and maintaining the credibility of these Guidelines.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.185
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.185
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.659
GPT teacher head0.701
Teacher spread0.042 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations44
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Care QualitySame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207