MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407837539 · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-203-5-345

Developing National Level Informatics Competencies for Undergraduate Nurses: Methodological Approaches from Australia and Canada

2013· book-chapter· en· W4407837539 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Borycki Elizabeth M., Foster Joanne, Sahama Tony, Frisch Noreen, Kushniruk Andre W.

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2013
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformaticsHealth informaticsMedical educationComputer scienceData scienceMedicineNursingPolitical sciencePublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health information systems are being implemented in countries by governments and regional health authorities in an effort to modernize healthcare. With these changes, there has emerged a demand by healthcare organizations for nurses graduating from college and university programs to have acquired nursing informatics competencies that would allow them to work in clinical practice settings (e.g. hospitals, clinics, home care etc). In this paper we examine the methods employed by two different countries in developing national level nursing informatics competencies expected of undergraduate nurses prior to graduation (i.e. Australia, Canada). This work contributes to the literature by describing the science and methods of nursing informatics competency development at a national level.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0110.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.558
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.040 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informatics→Same topicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration→French-language works237,207→