MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2993746772

Policy and procedure development: a novel approach.

2008· article· en· W2993746772 on OpenAlexaff
Dianne Husbands

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecialtyProcess (computing)Health careNursingMedicinePublic relationsMedical educationProcess managementBusinessPolitical scienceComputer scienceFamily medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article outlines the process used by a multi-site acute academic health science centre to revise and manage its nursing policies and procedures. It describes how the organization progressed from a paper-based opinion-driven environment to an electronic evidence-based practice. The process was initiated on "Policy Day," a one-day collaborative workshop attended by the stakeholders. Policy Day also provided the mechanism for specialty areas, such as head and neck surgery, to share expertise with nursing and the interprofessional healthcare community.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.087
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.096
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0870.096
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.016
Scholarly communication0.0190.015
Open science0.0040.013
Research integrity0.0110.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.255
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicHealth Sciences Research and Education→French-language works237,207→