MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2726059078 · doi:10.1097/ncq.0000000000000274

Using Local Data to Improve Care and Collaborative Practice

2017· article· en· W2726059078 on OpenAlexaff
Lianne Jeffs, Julie McShane, Alyssa Indar, M Maione

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Care Quality · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsGovernment of OntarioSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Quality managementQualitative propertyKnowledge managementValue (mathematics)Quality (philosophy)Qualitative researchPerceptionMedical educationNursingPsychologyProcess managementMedicineBusinessComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A qualitative study was undertaken to explore the experiences and perceptions of project leaders, clinicians, managers, and mentors associated with the implementation of a strategy aimed at enhancing clinicians' ability to use data to guide quality improvement projects. Our study findings elucidated the value and benefits including (1) using data to understand local context and move forward and (2) improving care and engaging in collaborative professional practice.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.371
GPT teacher head0.643
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designQualitative
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 Care QualitySame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207