A pilot study exploring the relationship between the use of mobile technologies, walking distance, and clinical decision making among rural hospital nurses
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Providing evidence-based information at the point of care for time-poor nurses may lead to better clinical care and patient outcomes. Smartphone applications (apps) have the advantage of providing immediate access to information potentially increasing time spent with patients. This small-scale pre-post survey study explored the impact a smartphone app had on the distance nurses walked and their perceived clinical decision-making ability. A total of 20 nurses working in a rural hospital medical/surgical unit participated. The findings suggest that the use of the smartphone app did not decrease nurses’ walking distance. Nor did using the app enhances nurses’ perception of their clinical decision-making ability. However, there was a statistically significant increase in confidence in the app over time (F(1,16) = 5.416, p = 0.033, partial η 2 = 0.253), suggesting that providing training opportunities including time to learn how to use smartphone applications has the potential to enhance nurses work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it