MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319642051 · doi:10.1097/cin.0000000000000226

Can Social Cognitive Theories Help Us Understand Nurses’ Use of Electronic Health Records?

2016· article· en· W2319642051 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueCIN Computers Informatics Nursing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsBooth University CollegeWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth recordsCognitionPsychologyData scienceComputer sciencePolitical scienceHealth carePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electronic health record implementations have accelerated in clinical settings around the world in an effort to improve patient safety and enhance efficiencies related to care delivery. As the largest group of healthcare professionals globally, nurses play an important role in the use of these records and ensuring their benefits are realized. Social cognitive theories such as the Theory of Reasoned Action, Theory of Planned Behaviour, and the Technology Acceptance Model have been developed to explain behavior. Given that variation in nurses' electronic health record utilization may influence the degree to which benefits are realized, the aim of this article is to explore how the use of these social cognitive theories may assist organizations implementing electronic health records to facilitate deeper-level adoption of this type of clinical technology.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.655

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.330 · 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