MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2543755080 · doi:10.1177/0193945916673815

Explorative Analyses of Nursing Research Data

2016· article· en· W2543755080 on OpenAlexaff
Hyeoneui Kim, Imho Jang, Jimmy Quach, A.J. Richardson, Jaemin Kim, Jeeyae Choi

Bibliographic record

VenueWestern Journal of Nursing Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsCancer Care Ontario
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchPatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
KeywordsMetadataStandardizationScope (computer science)Computer scienceMetadata repositoryMeta Data ServicesBig dataData elementNursingData scienceWorld Wide WebMedicineData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a first step of pursuing the vision of "Big Data science in nursing," we described the characteristics of nursing research data reported in 194 published nursing studies. We also explored how completely the Version 1 metadata specification of biomedical and healthCAre Data Discovery Index Ecosystem (bioCADDIE) represents these metadata. The metadata items of the nursing studies were all related to one or more of the bioCADDIE metadata entities. However, values of many metadata items of the nursing studies were not sufficiently represented through the bioCADDIE metadata. This was partly due to the differences in the scope of the content that the bioCADDIE metadata are designed to represent. The 194 nursing studies reported a total of 1,181 unique data items, the majority of which take non-numeric values. This indicates the importance of data standardization to enable the integrative analyses of these data to support Big Data science in 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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.655
GPT teacher head0.611
Teacher spread0.043 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWestern Journal of Nursing ResearchSame topicBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207