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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Usability evaluations are necessary to determine the feasibility of nurses' interactions with computerized clinical decision-support systems. Limitations and challenges of operations that inhibit or facilitate utilization in clinical practice can be identified. This study provided nurses with mobile information terminals, PDAs and tablet PCs, to improve point-of-care access to information. The purpose of this study was to determine usability issues associated with point-of-care technology. Eleven nurses were self-selected. Nurses were videotaped and audiotaped completing four tasks, including setting up the device and three resource search exercises. A research team member completed a usability checklist. Completion times for each task, success rate, and challenges experienced were documented. Four participants completed all tasks, with an average time of 3 minutes 22 seconds. Three participants were unable to complete any of the three tasks. Navigating within resources caused the greatest occurrence of deviations with 39 issues among all participants. Results of the usability evaluation suggest that nurses require a device that (1) is manageable to navigate and (2) utilizes a user-friendly interface, such as a one-time log-in system. Usability testing can be helpful to organizations as they document issues to be cognizant of during the implementation process, increasing the potential for successful implementation and sustained usability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it