MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558540815 · doi:10.1097/psn.0000000000000160

Using the Nursing Process to Identify and Treat Angioedema: A Case Study

2016· review· en· W2558540815 on OpenAlexaff
Tracey A. Hotta

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic Surgical Nursing · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoagulation, Bradykinin, Polyphosphates, and Angioedema
Canadian institutionsThornhill Medical (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoginLogo (programming language)World Wide WebComputer scienceInternet privacyProcess (computing)Register (sociolinguistics)Personally identifiable informationComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nursing process is the essential core of practice for registered nurses, independent of what field of nursing you have chosen. You learn it in nursing school and use it until you are no longer practicing. It is designed to train nurses how to develop a nursing care plan through critical thinking. Over the years it becomes a routine way of problem solving, but it is sometimes good to go back to the basics to remember the ground work. The focus of this article is to review the steps of the nursing process when faced with a complication, using our critical thinking skills.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venuePlastic Surgical NursingSame topicCoagulation, Bradykinin, Polyphosphates, and AngioedemaFrench-language works237,207