Philosophies, theories, and models used in occupational nursing: a review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: Identify nursing philosophies, theories and conceptual models applied to occupational health nursing. Method: Integrative review protocol, according to the six-stage proposal of Toronto and Remington in the year 2020, the WoS, PUBMED, SCOPUS and BVS databases will be consulted; after applying the filters, the summaries of each article will be read, those that meet the previously defined inclusion and exclusion criteria will be extensively reviewed; The quality control of the results will be through the evaluation scale of articles with heterogeneous methodologies for integrative reviews. Results: The results will be presented in narrative format, grouping the identified philosophies, theories, and conceptual frameworks into three categories: i. nurse as worker; ii. client as worker; iii. environmental health. Conclusion: It is expected that the review provides guidance on the use of theoretical frameworks to address health situations in occupational nursing, paying tribute to the excellent quality that nursing must have in the management of occupational health care.
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 | 0.140 | 0.141 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.008 |
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".