EXPERIENCIA FORMADORA CON CUATRO GUÍAS DE BUENAS PRÁCTICAS CLÍNICAS DE LA REGISTERED NURSES’ ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El presente artículo trata sobre la implementación de cuatro guías elaboradas por la Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario (Canadá) en la enseñanza de pregrado de la Carrera de Enfermería de la Universidad de Chile, proceso que se enmarca en el primer convenio establecido entre la Universidad de Chile y esta asociación. El acuerdo instaurado entre ambas instituciones promovió la incorporación de las guías: Valoración y Selección de Accesos Vasculares, Atención a las Familias, Establecimiento de Relación Terapéutica, y Valoración y Manejo del Dolor, al plan de formación de la Carrera de Enfermería, proceso liderado por docentes asesores de cada una de las guías a través de diversas estrategias pedagógicas y didácticas, demostrando un aporte significativo de este material al aprendizaje de los estudiantes de enfermería de la institución académica
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".