MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559795013 · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2016-003191

Experiences of midwives and nurses in policy development in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review protocol

2016· review· en· W2559795013 on OpenAlexaff
Josephine Etowa, Adele Vukic, Megan Aston, Nana Yaa Boadu, Melissa Helwig, Danielle Macdonald, Lindsey Sikora, Erica Wright, Seye Babatunde, Awoala Nelson George

Bibliographic record

VenueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)Dalhousie UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLow and middle income countriesQualitative researchPolicy developmentProtocol (science)NursingMiddle incomeDeveloping countryMedicinePolitical scienceEconomic growthSociologyAlternative medicinePublic administrationSocial scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

REVIEW QUESTION/OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to identify, appraise and synthesize the qualitative evidence on the experiences of midwives' and nurses' involvement in policy development in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This qualitative review seeks to address the following question:What are midwives' and nurses' experiences of being involved in policy development in LMICs?

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)0.103
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.102
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1030.102
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.011
Bibliometrics0.0170.014
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.004

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.371 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation ReportsSame topicNursing Education, Practice, and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207