MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2510084644 · doi:10.7748/ns.14.50.21.s32

Have your say

2000· article· en· W2510084644 on OpenAlexaff
Helen Caulfield

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Standard · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsRoyal Canadian Navy
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Do you care about the regulation of your profession? Over the next few weeks, Helen Caulfield will explain plans to replace the UKCC and help you make your views known

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.876

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0120.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0110.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2620.169

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.411 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing StandardSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207