Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a firmly established tradition within nursing research on clinical phenomena that recognizes that what we learn through our inquiries might have relevance not only for the scholarly and practice communities but for all those affected. In the case of chronicity, we fully recognize that persons with chronic diseases and their loved ones may find many of our conclusions immensely interesting, empowering, and even therapeutic. Sadly, the pressures of academic life and our traditional understanding of what constitutes a credible research portfolio often take precedence over our inherent sense of what might be the most appropriate way of disseminating the knowledge we develop. While it has become relatively common in grant proposals to profess an interest in creative dissemination approaches such as publishing our findings in a daily newspaper, writing a column for a women's magazine, or arranging to be interviewed on talk shows, far too few dedicated researchers put such lofty ideas into practice (Stoddard, 1997).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".