MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312154559 · doi:10.1177/08943184221131966

Application of Fawcett’s Criteria in Theory Evaluation

2022· article· en· W4312154559 on OpenAlexaff
Steve Iduye

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Science Quarterly · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Satisfaction in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth informaticsRelevance (law)Field (mathematics)Health Administration InformaticsInformaticsHealth careComputer scienceNursing theoryConceptual frameworkKnowledge managementManagement scienceNursing researchQuality (philosophy)Engineering ethicsNursingSociologyMEDLINEEpistemologyMedicinePolitical scienceEngineeringSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nursing informatics is an emergent field of practice, as are the conceptual and theoretical frameworks that underpin research in this field of practice. In research, theoretical frameworks serve as structured roadmaps that connect various concepts and propositions in a field of study. Therefore, building theoretical frameworks in nursing informatics requires evaluating relevant knowledge from other disciplines that intersect with nursing informatics to justify its relevance and applicability. Fawcett's criteria provide feasible approaches for evaluating middle-range theory. Consequently, the prominent health program framework popularly referred to as the Donabedian Healthcare Quality Framework is significant to nursing informatics research and projects.

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)0.425
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.664
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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4250.664
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.011
Bibliometrics0.0440.031
Science and technology studies0.0100.019
Scholarly communication0.0120.011
Open science0.0070.013
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.430 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing Science QuarterlySame topicPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207