MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A rapid review on current and potential uses of large language models in nursing

2024· review· en· W4392755271 on OpenAlexaff
Mollie Hobensack, Hanna von Gerich, Pankaj Vyas, Jennifer Withall, Laura‐Maria Peltonen, Lorraine J. Block, Shauna Davies, Ryan Chan, Liesbet Van Bulck, Hwayoung Cho, Robert Paquin, James Mitchell, Maxim Topaz, Jiyoun Song

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Nursing Studies · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of ReginaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLSystematic reviewInclusion (mineral)MEDLINENursingNursing literatureMedicinePsychologyComputer scienceMedical educationAlternative medicinePathologyPsychological interventionSocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.401
GPT teacher head0.606
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations69
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Nursing StudiesSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207