MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Core components and impact of nurse-led integrated care models for home-dwelling older people: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3008808421 on OpenAlexaff
Mieke Deschodt, Gwen Laurent, Lonne Cornelissen, Olivia Yip, Franziska Zúñiga, Kris Denhaerynck, Matthias Briel, Azra Karabegović, Sabina De Geest

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Nursing Studies · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungEuropean CommissionVelux Stiftung
KeywordsCINAHLMedicineIntegrated careSystematic reviewPopulationMEDLINENursingChronic careHealth careMeta-analysisEmergency departmentGerontologyFamily medicinePsychological interventionEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.032
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.321
GPT teacher head0.587
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations110
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Nursing StudiesSame topicInterprofessional Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207