MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Interpretation of the best practice guidelines 2017 by Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario—Adult Asthma Care: Promoting Control of Asthma (Second Version)

2019· article· en· W3032582854 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mengxian Ou, Yu Liu, Jing Chen, Lijiao Yan, Kailian Yang, Fengling Lu, Yi'na Shen, Qiao He

Bibliographic record

VenueZhonghua xiandai huli zazhi · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsthmaPromotion (chess)MedicineNursingAssociation (psychology)Control (management)Interpretation (philosophy)Quality (philosophy)Family medicineClinical PracticeAsthma managementPsychologyInternal medicinePolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nurses from all medical environments have close contacts with asthma patients, it can recognize the early indicators of poor asthma control, and provide self-management education and play important roles in the promotion of asthma control. In order to improve the quality of nursing practice in adult asthma control, Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario (RNAO) in Canada published the guidelines of Adult Asthma Care: Promoting Control of Asthma (Second Version) in 2017 after summarizing the latest evidence in order to provide systematic guidance. This articles analyzed the suggestions in the nursing practice guidelines and introduce the suggestions from all sections including nursing assessment, planning, implementation and evaluation in nursing practice. Key words: Guidebooks; Bronchial asthma; Adult; Asthma control; Interpretation

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)0.064
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.282
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0640.282
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.007

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.290 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZhonghua xiandai huli zazhiSame topicNursing Diagnosis and DocumentationFrench-language works237,207