MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2352635661

The research of nursing quality evaluation criteria

2005· article· en· W2352635661 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chunyu Li

Bibliographic record

VenueChinese Nursing Managemen · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEvaluation Methods in Various Fields
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuality (philosophy)NursingNursing researchQuality managementNursing Outcomes ClassificationOutcome (game theory)Operations managementTeam nursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By quality research method, using the universal international nursing quality standard-making theory model, the Donabedian structure-process-outcome model, as the theory frame, a set of standard nursing quality evaluation criteria was made after a systemic literature review of American, Canadian, Australian,England, Japanese, Korean, Taiwan, Hongkong, and Chinese. The criteria included three parts: the structure and organization, the practice, and the performance evaluation standards of the hospital nursing quality.

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)0.203
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.349
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2030.349
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0160.014
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.267
GPT teacher head0.572
Teacher spread0.305 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChinese Nursing ManagemenSame topicEvaluation Methods in Various FieldsFrench-language works237,207