MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2399357179 · doi:10.1177/084456211304500307

Evaluating Nurses' Use of HOBIC in Home Care

2013· article· en· W2399357179 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Lynn Nagle, Peggy White

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Nursing Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityNursingHealth careChristian ministryLong-term careMedicineMEDLINEPsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health Outcomes for Better Information and Care (HOBIC), a program funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, introduces a collection of evidence-based clinical outcome measures reflective of nursing care. The authors report on an evaluation of the experiences of nurse early adopters of HOBIC in home care. The findings reveal challenges and nuances associated with the introduction of HOBIC and the use of supporting technologies in the delivery of home nursing care. Future implementation efforts should focus on optimizing the usability of technology and the usefulness of HOBIC in nursing practice. In addition, efforts need to be directed at supporting the full integration and use of HOBIC outcome data by nurses and management personnel to inform practice directions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Nursing ResearchSame topicNursing Diagnosis and DocumentationFrench-language works237,207