MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944468919 · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-738-2-212

Evolving Role of the Nursing Informatics Specialist

2017· article· en· W2944468919 on OpenAlexaff
Lynn Nagle, Walter Sermeus

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Health Administration InformaticsInformaticsHealth informaticsNursingEngineering informaticsHealth careEngineering ethicsNursing practiceMedicineKnowledge managementComputer sciencePolitical scienceEngineeringPublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The scope of nursing informatics practice has been evolving over the course of the last 5 decades, expanding to address the needs of health care organizations and in response to the evolution of technology. In parallel, the educational preparation of nursing informatics specialists has become more formalized and shaped by the requisite competencies of the role. In this chapter, the authors describe the evolution of nursing informatics roles, scope and focus of practice, and anticipated role responsibilities and opportunities for the future. Further, implications and considerations for the future are presented.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.356 · 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.

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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicNursing Diagnosis and DocumentationFrench-language works237,207