The relation of critical care nurses' information-seeking behaviour with perception of personal control, training, and non-routineness of the task.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between (1) critical care nurses' information-seeking behaviour and the non-routineness of tasks; and (2) the extent to which nurses' perception of their problem-solving abilities when completing patient care tasks, moderate the relationship between information-seeking behaviour and non-routineness of tasks. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey design was used. A random sample (n = 177) of critical care nurses working in hospital settings was selected from the College of Nurses of Ontario (CNO) database. Descriptive statistics and multiple regression were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Previous information-seeking training (p = 0.008), non-routineness of the task (p = 0.018), and the perception of the problem-solving ability domain of personal control (p = 0.040) had positive relationships with information-seeking behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: The development of problem-solving skills such as personal control, in addition to information-seeking training is essential so critical care nurses will have the skills to aid their information needs when faced with the completion of non-routine tasks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".