MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2405456518 · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-415-2-356

Developing Entry-to-Practice Nursing Informatics Competencies for Registered Nurses

2014· article· en· W2405456518 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lynn Nagle, Kristine Crosby, Noreen Frisch, Elizabeth M. Borycki, Lorie Donelle, Kathryn Hannah, Alexandra Harris, Tracy Shaben

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityAlberta Health ServicesUniversité de SherbrookeUniversity of VictoriaAdministrative Sciences Association of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation and Communications TechnologyInformaticsHealth informaticsNursingWork (physics)Health careMedicineHealthcare deliveryInformation technologyMedical educationProcess (computing)Knowledge managementComputer sciencePolitical scienceEngineeringPublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information and communication technologies (ICT) have brought about significant changes to the processes of health care delivery and changed how nurses perform in clinical, administrative, academic, and research settings. Because the potential benefits of ICT are significant, it is critical that new nurses have the knowledge and skills in informatics to provide safe and effective care. Despite the prevalence of technology in our day to day lives, and the potential significant benefits to patients, new nurses may not be prepared to work in this evolving reality. An important step in addressing this need for ICT preparation is to ensure that new graduates are entering the work force ready for technology-enabled care environments. In this paper, we describe the process and outcomes of developing informatics entry-to-practice competencies for adoption by Canadian Schools of Nursing.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.340 · 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
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

Citations34
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207