MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2509688792 · doi:10.7748/ns.20.18.34.s35

Voices - Nurse innovators possess drive and true grit. And now they have an online resource, says Linda Thomas

2006· article· en· W2509688792 on OpenAlexaff
Linda Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Standard · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDietetics, Nutrition, and Education
Canadian institutionsRoyal Canadian Navy
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNothingGRASPResource (disambiguation)Health careGritPsychologyBusinessPublic relationsManagementComputer sciencePolitical scienceSocial psychologyLawEconomicsPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nurses intent on improving practice are often a driven bunch. They identify a gap in healthcare provision and will stop at nothing until that gap is filled. Initially, the chances are that no one else will be interested – although sometimes enlightened managers or medical consultant colleagues grasp what they are trying to achieve.

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)0.005
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0120.011
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0790.039

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.361 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing StandardSame topicDietetics, Nutrition, and EducationFrench-language works237,207