MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2345916952 · doi:10.1177/0898010116645422

Getting a Picture

2016· article· en· W2345916952 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel A. Nagel, Dawn Stacey, Kathryn Momtahan, Wendy Gifford, Shelley Doucet, Josephine Etowa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Holistic Nursing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Delivery of care by nurses in virtual environments is rapidly increasing with uptake of digitally mediated technologies, such as remote patient monitoring (RPM). Knowing the person is a phenomenon in nursing practice deemed requisite to building relationships and informing clinical decisions, but it has not been studied in virtual environments. PURPOSE OF STUDY: The intent of this study was to explicate the processes of how nurses come to know the person using RPM, one form of telehealth technology used in a virtual environment. STUDY DESIGN AND METHOD: The study was informed by Charmaz's constructivist grounded theory and included 33 interviews and 5 observational experiences of nurses using RPM in 7 different settings. FINDINGS: Getting a Picture evolved as the core category to a theoretical conceptualization of nurses knowing the person through use of RPM and other technologies, such as telephone and electronic medical records. Getting a Picture reflected a dynamic flow and integration of seven processes, such as Connecting With the Person and Recording and Reflecting, to describe how nurses strove to attain a visualization of the person. CONCLUSIONS: While navigating disparate and disconnected information and communication technologies, Getting a Picture was important for providing safe, holistic, person-centered 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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.350 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Holistic NursingSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207