Bibliographic record
Abstract
Big data using data science methods (data analytics) has the potential to effectively inform strategies to address complex healthcare challenges. However, this potential can only be realized if healthcare professionals have the requisite depth and breadth of knowledge (i.e., informatics competencies). With the emergence of electronic health records (EHRs - commonly known as clinical information systems [CISs]) in healthcare organizations, data analytics that can "interrogate" CIS big data are now possible. In its digitized form, CIS healthcare data meant to support real-time, evidence-based practice decisions and guide new health policy directions remain more of a conceptual promise than a practice reality. Further, the "data rich information poor" phenomenon existing with today's CISs is often the reality for nurses who document more patient information compared to other healthcare professionals and get negligible results in return. However, data science methods when applied to CIS big data are "uncovering" new evidence currently unavailable through traditional data analytic approaches. Big data science is predicted to provide immense opportunities for nurse leaders by offering robust, electronic tools, which support informed decision-making at corporate tables and "arm" all point-of-care/service clinicians with real-time evidence. In this article, we provide a perspective on how the field of data science can enable informatics-savvy nurse executives to lead clinical transformation in the development of the next generation of evidence-based practice, "practice-based evidence."
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".