MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2602495272 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v7n8p101

Increasing self-awareness when posting on social media sites

2017· article· en· W2602495272 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michelle Doas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media in Health Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mediaPoint (geometry)PsychologyInstant messagingSocial psychologyInternet privacyPublic relationsSociologyAdvertisingBusinessComputer sciencePolitical scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At some point, most nurses have, or will post on Social media sites. Social media includes, but is not limited to Facebook, Snap Chat, You Tube and Twitter and allows instant communication, often without in-depth thought of professional consequences. The casualness and easy access to these forms of communication increase the likelihood that a nurse may innocently disclose information that could have a negative impact on his/her professional role.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.350
GPT teacher head0.549
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice→Same topicSocial Media in Health Education→French-language works237,207→