A Response to: Efficacy of the Use of the Calgary Family Intervention Model in Bedside Nursing Education: A Systematic Review [Letter]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
of this systematic review followed the Kruse Protocol for conducting a systematic review and reported results by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). The goal of this review was to objectively analyze the research for empirical evidence of the efficacy of the use of the Calgary Family Intervention Model (CFIM) in assisting bedside education by nurses and to identify facilitators and barriers to the use of the Model. This protocol has not been listed in a prospectively listed international systematic review database. It is recommended that the protocol be registered in the PROSPERO database for peer review and to reduce unnecessary duplication of efforts among researchers. If a review protocol has been registered, it must be indicated where it can be accessed by providing a registration number and website address or using someone else's protocol. PROSPERO is an international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews in the health and social fields. The main features of the review protocol are recorded and maintained as permanent records. Systematic reviews should be enrolled early (that is, at the protocol stage) to help avoid unplanned duplication and to allow comparison of the review methods reported with those planned in the protocol. t the article selection process stage, there are difficulties for readers to understand the PRISMA diagram shown. At the screening stage, the reasons for releasing 106 articles from 135 articles have not been explained. Meanwhile, in this section, there is also a selection based on full text, which has a different section from the selection process above. The author needs to explain this so that the screening carried out guarantees the selected articles according to standards.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.149 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.038 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.009 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".