MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2622078298 · doi:10.12968/bjon.2003.12.2.12125

Network For Psychiatric Nursing Research Journal Club

2003· article· en· W2622078298 on OpenAlexaff
John JR Cutcliffe, Julia Jones, Ann Jackson

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Nursing · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingAutonomyTest (biology)MedicinePsychiatric hospitalClubPsychiatryPsychiatric wardPsychologyFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, the author surveys established psychiatric nurses' opinions of the content of advanced practitioner nursing roles by sending a questionnaire to a random sample of 100 members of the Network for Psychiatric Nursing Research (NPNR) network, receiving a response rate of 78%. The results identified elements of the ‘normal’ nursing roles (e.g. basic psychotherapeutic practices), and elements of the ‘advanced’ nursing role (e.g. enhanced autonomy in admission and discharge). The study concluded that an advanced psychiatric nursing role was supported by psychiatric nurses and recommended that pilot sites, to test the acceptability and effectiveness of the role, should be established.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.588
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of NursingSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207