MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023802345 · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocaa031

Assessment of the Nursing Quality Indicators for Reporting and Evaluation (NQuIRE) database using a data quality index

2020· article· en· W3023802345 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsRegistered Nurses' Association of Ontario
FundersGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsData qualityDatabaseQuality (philosophy)Metric (unit)Index (typography)Computer scienceQuality managementData miningOperations managementEngineeringWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A comprehensive data quality assessment is necessary to expand a nursing database that is designed for evaluating the impact of implementing Best Practice Guidelines (BPG) developed by the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario (RNAO). This case report presents a method to standardize data quality assessments of the Nursing Quality Indicators for Reporting and Evaluation (NQuIRE) database by developing a data quality framework (DQF) and assessing key dimensions of the framework using a data quality index (DQI). The data quality index is a single key performance metric for assessing the quality of the database. The aims of sharing this case report are 2-fold: (1) to promote best practices for assessing data quality by developing and implementing a data quality framework and (2) to demonstrate an unprecedented method of assessing the data quality of a nursing database.

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 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)0.090
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.159
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0900.159
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.464
GPT teacher head0.592
Teacher spread0.128 · 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