MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimising the collaborative practice of nurses in primary care settings using a knowledge translation approach

2015· article· en· W2555070580 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nelly D. Oelke, Amanda Wilhelm, Karen Jackson

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence & Policy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStakeholderScope (computer science)Knowledge translationPrimary careSummitScope of practiceNursingStakeholder engagementMedicineMedical educationPsychologyKnowledge managementPolitical sciencePublic relationsComputer scienceHealth careFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of nurses in primary care is poorly understood and many are not working to their full scope of practice. Building on previous research, this knowledge translation (KT) project's aim was to facilitate nurses’ capacity to optimise their practice in these settings. A Summit engaging Alberta stakeholders in a deliberative discussion was the primary KT method used. Participants developed ten recommendations for the effective utilisation of nurses in primary care. Several challenges were encountered: ensuring broad stakeholder representation; focusing on solutions versus issues; and using common language across stakeholder groups. Lessons learned through this KT approach are also identified.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.690
GPT teacher head0.684
Teacher spread0.006 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence & PolicySame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207