MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360804740 · doi:10.1002/nop2.1727

Standardized and validated training to support the charge nurse: Research protocol

2023· article· en· W4360804740 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth Education and Validation
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
FundersRéseau de recherche portant sur les interventions en sciences infirmières du QuébecUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisCanadian Nurses Foundation
KeywordsProtocol (science)Charge (physics)PsychologyTraining (meteorology)NursingMedicineMedical educationPhysicsAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To develop a standardized training for charge nurses. DESIGN: A developmental research design divided into three parts will be undertaken. METHODS: (1) A scoping review will be used to develop standardized training focusing on charge nurse skills and sub-skills; (2) a Delphi review with nurses, managers and researchers will validate the content of the training; content validity will be assessed over sufficient rounds of review to obtain a content validity index of over 0.7 and (3) a cross-sectional study will pilot test the training with 30 charge nurses. RESULTS: This study will describe the development of updated and empirically validated training to be systematically implemented in healthcare institutions and offered to charge nurses when they begin.

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.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.632
GPT teacher head0.669
Teacher spread0.036 · 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