Notice bibliographique
Résumé
It is a truism that nursing has become more and more international in its scope and inter-relationships. This is one of the great benefits of the globalisation of the world economy, together with electronic communication and ease of air travel. Every time I put together a new collection of articles for publication in INR, I am amazed at the range of countries represented. In this issue for example there are authors from Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, Israel, Jordan, Nigeria, Portugal, Republic of Ireland, South Korea, Sweden, Taiwan, Turkey, Uganda and the USA. Not only are authors from individual countries represented, but also at least five of the articles in the current issue represent collaborations between nurses from different countries. If we were also to include the nationalities of the reviewers of all these articles, the list would be even longer. We should not underestimate the obstacles that may have been overcome in order to achieve this collaboration. Differences in language (written, possibly using different alphabets, and spoken), resource availability, time zones and, above all, subtle differences in cultural interpretations of nursing, health care and life in general. It is also a truism that engaging in international collaborative research and publication demands huge personal, voluntary commitment on the part of all participants. ‘Day jobs’ do not disappear whilst all this activity is undertaken. Caring, teaching, and personal lives cannot simply be ‘put on hold’. That so much has been, and is being, achieved internationally is a matter for celebration amongst nurses everywhere. This collaboration is the positive ‘other side of the coin’ to the conflict that I wrote about in the September issue (57.3). A briefing (RCN 2010) from the International Department of the Royal College of Nursing, England (http://rcn.org.uk) gives an update on the European Year of Volunteering 2011. The RCN gives as an example of international collaboration in nurse education the case study on a Canadian-Bangladeshi partnership published in INR (Berland et al. 2010) (currently on the front page of the ICN website: http://www.icn.ch). The RCN cites amongst the mutual benefits derived from the partnership: the material resources made available; the sharing of expertise between high and low income countries; professional development; and interaction between faculty and students. This seems to be a classic example of what the Europe for Citizens programme, which includes the European Year of Volunteering within its brief, aims to achieve ‘in bringing people closer together’. The International Council of Nurses (ICN), of course, extends its brief internationally to nurses in more than 130 countries. In promoting participation and shared values, achieving intercultural dialogue, employment, social cohesion and sustainable development (European Commission – Citizenship 2010), it appears that nursing, once again, leads the way!
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».