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
Blogging within the health profession has grown in the recent past. This article aims to perform an analysis of the theoretical aspects of blogging, the use by professional nurses and students, benefits for patients, and, finally, an approach to the activities of Spanish nursing blogs. Blogs have great advantages as social communication tools. Immediacy in content update, closeness to information consumers, and compatibility with other Web 2.0 tools are points to be highlighted. Nurses use blogs for education and communication with other health professionals, students, and patients. For patients, therapeutic effects have been demonstrated in using blogging to share their health problems and express their experiential viewpoints. There are about 80 blogs written by Spanish nurses; most of them originated in the period between 2010 and 2012. These blogs are targeted to professionals (59%), patients (20%), or mixed (13%). There is a great heterogeneity in content: informative style (20%), opinion (28%), narrative (9%), experiential (2%), or humorous (2%). Nursing language is present in 15%, research and evidence-based practice in 13%, and protocols, guidelines, and procedures in 11% of them. We propose the need to plan institutional strategies for effective use of Web 2.0 resources as well as the need to unify criteria to provide quality content.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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