MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394769713 · doi:10.12694/scpe.v25i3.2664

Knowledge Graph Analysis for Chronic Diseases Nursing based on Visualization Technology and Literature Big Data

2024· article· en· W4394769713 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueScalable Computing Practice and Experience · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBig dataVisualizationData scienceGraphComputer scienceData miningTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of knowledge graph analysis for chronic disease nursing based on visualization technology and literature big data is an unexplored area of research in this field of study. To uncover research hotspots and developmental trends in the field of chronic disease nursing, and to provide a scholarly reference, we employed mathematical and statistical methods along with CiteSpace literature visualization analysis software for quantitative analysis of extensive literature data from the Web of Science Core Collection. We examined aspects such as publication trends, journals, author collaborations, research institutions, national and regional distributions, keyword co-occurrence, clustering, time zones, emergence, literature co-citations, and more. These analyses identified the current hotspots and future directions for research. Notably, scholars' interest in chronic disease nursing exhibited a consistent upward trajectory. In particular, the field of artificial intelligence technology application in nursing yielded $3,610$ published papers in $141$ journals with more than or equal to $10$ published papers on the topic, accounting for $58.41 \%$ of the total number of published papers in this field of study. Furthermore, the top three publishers were the “Journal of Clinical Nursing,” “Journal of Advanced Nursing,” and “BMC Health Services Research.” Among authors, Hu, Frank B., Willett, Walter C., and Rimm, Eric B., ranked as the top three, and 12 authors had more than 10 publications. The most active research institutions included Harvard University, Harvard Medical School, Brigham & Women’s Hospital, University of California System, University of London, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, University of Sydney, and the University of Toronto. The United States, Australia, England, China, Canada, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Sweden, and Germany emerged as the leading countries in terms of research output, while emerging hotspots encompassed topics such as incidence, rheumatoid arthritis, qualitative research, burnout, kidney transplantation, critical illness, COVID-19, Sars-COV-2, public health, and the well-being of medical staff. These findings present valuable insights for prospective research endeavors.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.359 · 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