MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162804628 · doi:10.1177/08404704211015428

Digital and informatics competencies: Requirements for nursing leaders in Canada

2021· article· en· W3162804628 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Brian Lo, Lynn Nagle, Peggy White, Manal Kleib, Margaret Ann Kennedy, Gillian Strudwick

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsNSCAD UniversityUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of TorontoUniversity of New BrunswickCanadian Nurses AssociationCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersInstitute of Health Services and Policy Research
KeywordsChampionDigital healthHealth careTransformative learningHealth informaticsNursingContext (archaeology)Public relationsBusinessKnowledge managementInformaticsMedicinePsychologyPolitical scienceComputer sciencePublic healthPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of health information technologies continues to grow, especially with the increase in virtual care in response to COVID-19. As the largest health professional group in Canada, nurses are key stakeholders and their active engagement is essential for the meaningful adoption and use of digital health technologies to support patient care. Nurse leaders in particular are uniquely positioned to inform key technology decisions; therefore, enhancing their informatics capacity is paramount to the success of digital health initiatives and investments. The purpose of this commentary is to reflect on current projects relevant to the development of informatics competencies for nurse leaders in the Canadian context and offer our perspectives on ways to enhance current and future nurse leaders' readiness for participation in digital health initiatives. Addressing the digital health knowledge and abilities of nurse leaders will improve their capacity to champion and lead transformative health system changes through digital innovation.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.678
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207