Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the period of writing the work, the knowledge of nurses about tetanus vaccines and their prophylaxis was evaluated. The evaluation is based on the personal knowledge of the respondents. The aim of the work is to evaluate nurses’ knowledge about tetanus vaccines. The objectives of the work are to determine the level of nurses’ knowledge about tetanus vaccines; to examine the opinion of nurses on the performance of vaccines against tetanus; to analyse the lack of knowledge of nurses and their development possibilities. The characteristics of research. The research was carried out in November- December 2018 at the hospital of Lithuanian health sciences university. Research sample was 40 respondents. To reach the aim of research was used anonymous questionnaire in writing. The research led to the following main findings that nurses knowledge about tetanus vaccination is modest, rated on a five-point scale. Nurses lack knowledge about the frequency of vaccination against tetanus, as only a quarter of respondents know exactly when it is recommended to take tetanus vaccination. There were a very small number of respondents in the survey who knew exactly how they had properly perform vaccination against tetanus, as three-fifths of the nursing respondents performed the vaccination against tetanus according to the requirements, and the rest performed equally other vaccination. An analysis of the results of the empirical study it was found that nurses wanted to improve their knowledge and skills about tetanus vaccination. The surveyed nurses would like to know more about the frequency of vaccination against tetanus, the vaccine itself, the vaccination technique.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".