MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325925341 · doi:10.1097/ncq.0000000000000095

Leveraging Data to Transform Nursing Care

2014· article· en· W2325925341 on OpenAlexaff
Lianne Jeffs, Vera Nincic, Peggy White, Laureen Hayes, Joyce Lo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Care Quality · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Satisfaction in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsToronto Public HealthSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingLeverage (statistics)Nurse AdministratorNursing careMEDLINEPsychologyMedicineComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study was undertaken to gain insight into how nurse leaders are influencing the use of performance data to improve nursing care in hospitals. Two themes emerged: getting relevant, reliable, and timely data into the hands of nurses, and the leaders' ability to "connect the dots" in working with different stakeholders. Study findings may inform nurse leaders in their efforts to leverage data to transform nursing care.

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 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)0.222
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.414
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2220.414
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.012
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0180.023
Open science0.0030.019
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.401
GPT teacher head0.588
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Care QualitySame topicPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207