MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177239561 · doi:10.1097/nnd.0000000000000738

Expedited Cross-Training

2021· article· en· W3177239561 on OpenAlexaff
S. Patel, Benjamin Hartung, Roxana Nagra, Amy Davignon, Taranvir Dayal, Maria Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for Nurses in Professional Development · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteCARE CanadaRegistered Nurses' Association of OntarioBaycrest HospitalNOSM UniversitySystems, Applications & Products in Data Processing (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStaffingEconomic shortageTraining (meteorology)NursingPlan (archaeology)Professional developmentMedicineMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cross-training of nurses is an approach used by hospitals to mitigate anticipated nurse staffing shortages. This article provides professional practice nurse educators guidance on how to plan, implement, and evaluate expedited cross-training that integrate the principles of just-in-time training. Sixty-one nurses in a postacute care hospital setting were cross-trained over the course of 8 weeks using a six-step method.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.373 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for Nurses in Professional DevelopmentSame topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207