MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322314876 · doi:10.1097/ans.0b013e3181b1056e

Dilemmas, Tetralemmas, Reimagining the Electronic Health Record

2009· review· en· W2322314876 on OpenAlexaff
Olga Petrovskaya, Marjorie McIntyre, Carol McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Nursing Science · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDilemmaDocumentationIdeologyElectronic health recordNursing practiceNursingNursing documentationHealth carePsychologySociologyMedicineNursing careComputer sciencePolitical scienceEpistemologyPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the transition from paper-based to computer-based records, nursing practice shifts to computerized documentation of care in the electronic health record (EHR). Viewed not only as an electronic document, but as an instrument of modern economic and technological ideology that serves organizational goals of cost-efficiency, the EHR can be perceived as creating a dilemma for a patient-centered nursing practice. Viewing the EHR as relying solely on the use of standardized languages begets a number of questions and furthers the dilemma for nurses. Through a discussion that draws on the Indian tradition of the tetralemma, authors transcend the EHR/nursing dilemma.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.404 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Nursing ScienceSame topicNursing Diagnosis and DocumentationFrench-language works237,207