MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242486892 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-17461/v1

Nurse’s clinical skill utilisation: An opinion from public health institutions

2020· preprint· en· W4242486892 on OpenAlexfundno aff
santosh mahindrakar, Man Singh Jat, Besty Ann Varghese

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square (Research Square) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Aboriginal Peoples Health
KeywordsPublic opinionNursingBusinessPsychologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Nurses are the backbone of health care systems worldwide. In India the assessment of existing knowledge of nursing workforce and the utilization of skills is not evaluated and properly used to ensure good quality in health care. Methods Using the Delphi technique a survey was developed and sent to nurses. Self- rating methods (on a likert scale) were used in order to operationalize the personal skills. Results Almost half (48%) of the participants have a Bachelor degree. Out of this 27.2% qualified for a higher education (e.g. Master in related subject). Most nurses (56% in sample were females) are permanent employed working as staff nurse or nursing officers in the public sector. Among the participants 20% have sufficient teaching experience between 1 to 3 years. Self-rating of skills was high in almost all topics. Conclusion Having attained higher education most of the participants remain working as staff nurses. The good self-rating of participants underlines their ability to take over much higher positions and responsibilities. Moreover, teaching experience is hardly acknowledged by institutions since teaching staff is usually recruited from outside. The study suggests that a majority of the population has an interest to work in rural area. Better work conditions are needed in order to gain workforce in this areas.

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)0.069
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0690.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0120.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.0040.042
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.011

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 head0.707
GPT teacher head0.682
Teacher spread0.025 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square (Research Square)Same topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207