MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307629461 · doi:10.7202/1093080ar

Définir et mesurer la contention chimique : un premier consensus francophone en soins infirmiers

2022· article· fr· W4307629461 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Catherine Hupé, Caroline Larue

Bibliographic record

VenueScience of Nursing and Health Practices · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l'Est-de-l'Île-de-MontréalUniversité de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrenchPolitical scienceSociologyHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Définir et mesurer la contention chimique : un premier consensus francophone en soins infirmiers. An article from journal Science of Nursing and Health Practices / Science infirmière et pratiques en santé (Supplément. Spécial Congrès mondial du Secrétariat international des infirmières et infirmiers de l’espace francophone (SIDIIEF) : 16 – 20 octobre 2022, Ottawa, Canada), on Érudit.

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)0.194
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.207
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1940.207
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0100.015
Scholarly communication0.0140.013
Open science0.0090.013
Research integrity0.0110.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.363 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience of Nursing and Health PracticesSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207