MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7082443421 · doi:10.63332/joph.v4i3.3373

From Evidence to Action: Enhancing Collaborative Practice in Healthcare Teams

2024· article· en· W7082443421 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Posthumanism · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careBridging (networking)Transformative learningIntuitionClinical PracticeHealthcare systemHealthcare policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence-based practice (EBP) has emerged as a transformative framework in healthcare, bridging the gap between research evidence, clinical expertise, and patient values. Its foundations lie in the recognition that high-quality care cannot rely solely on tradition or intuition but must be informed by systematically gathered evidence. Over the past three decades, EBP has become a standard expectation in healthcare institutions worldwide, guiding decision-making and ensuring safe, effective, and patient-centered outcomes.

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)0.214
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.340
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2140.340
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.005
Science and technology studies0.0140.023
Scholarly communication0.0320.030
Open science0.0100.069
Research integrity0.0150.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.315 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PosthumanismSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207