MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2341216599 · doi:10.1111/nicc.12243

To put the patient in the best condition: integrating integrative therapies in critical care

2016· editorial· en· W2341216599 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Papathanassoglou, Tanya Park

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing in Critical Care · 2016
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllostasisTerminologyHealth careBalance (ability)StressorPsychological interventionPsychologyMedicineNursingPolitical scienceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[Extract] What do critically ill patients need? After some 40 years of research in critical care it is remarkable how little we still know. Fulfilment of human needs is both the therapeutic and moral imperative of nursing. Since Nightingale’s time, the assumption has been that by taking care of human needs, we ‘put the patient in the best condition for nature to act upon him’ (Nightingale, 1860). Our terminology has evolved but the intention is the same.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0100.012
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0040.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.381 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing in Critical CareSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207