MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312103358 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igac059.1520

SUPPORTING NURSING HOME MANAGERS TO ACT ON PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK DATA: A PROVINCEWIDE IMPLEMENTATION

2022· article· en· W4312103358 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carole A. Estabrooks, Seyedehtanaz Saeidzadeh, Stirling Bryan, Peter Norton, Liane Ginsburg, Matthias Hoben, Don C. McLeod

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityTranslational Research in OncologyUniversity of CalgaryMichael Smith Health Research BCUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterimFidelityLong-term careIntervention (counseling)Adaptation (eye)Process (computing)NursingProcess managementBusinessPsychologyMedicineComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract INFORM (Improving Nursing home care through Feedback on perfoRMance data) is a tested research intervention targeting care managers that demonstrated positive two year follow up results and has subsequently been shaped into an operationally acceptable “implementation package”. This package or innovation is being scaled up in one Canadian province’s total Long-Term-Care (LTC) home population with in depth process evaluation during the first cohort of LTC homes. This evaluation will, among other things, assess sector needs for adaptation (vs fidelity). At its core INFORM is designed to address managers’ learning needs with respect to using data to make positive change in a continuous learning loop. We will discuss the transformation of a research intervention to a sector innovation and report on interim process evaluation results.

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)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.391 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207