MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282924626 · doi:10.1177/08445621221107108

Sensitivity Analysis: A Method to Promote Certainty and Transparency in Nursing and Health Research

2022· article· en· W4282924626 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Fabrice Mowbray, Donna Manlongat, Meghna Shukla

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Nursing Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)CertaintySensitivity (control systems)Nursing researchManagement scienceMedicinePsychologyNursingComputer scienceEpistemologyEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nursing and health researchers may be presented with uncertainty regarding the utilization or legitimacy of methodological or analytic decisions. Sensitivity analyses are purposed to gain insight and certainty about the validity of research findings reported. Reporting guidelines and health research methodologists have emphasized the importance of utilizing and reporting sensitivity analyses in clinical research. However, sensitivity analyses are underreported in nursing and health research. The aim of this methodological overview is to provide an introduction to the purpose, conduct, interpretation, and reporting of sensitivity analyses, using a series of simulated and contemporary case examples.

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)0.104
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.841
GPT teacher head0.771
Teacher spread0.070 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations48
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Nursing ResearchSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207