MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2478789032 · doi:10.1097/ncq.0000000000000207

Nursing Process Health Care Indicators

2016· article· en· W2478789032 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Xiao, Kimberley Widger, Ann E. Tourangeau, Whitney Berta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Care Quality · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingNursing processHealth careIdentification (biology)Process (computing)Nursing careNursing Outcomes ClassificationQuality (philosophy)Foundation (evidence)MedicineNursing researchProcess managementBusinessTeam nursingComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Identifying how nursing care directly affects patients is essential to improving care quality, reducing costs, and determining nursing's contribution to overall organizational performance. This scoping review examined methods used for developing nursing process health care indicators. Key concepts and sources of evidence were identified to lay a foundation for future development and identification of valid and reliable nursing process health care indicators.

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)0.000
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 score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.936

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.424 · 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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Care QualitySame topicNursing Diagnosis and DocumentationFrench-language works237,207