Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The publication of this issue coincides with the ICN 23rd Quadrennial Congress in Taipei, Taiwan, to be held from 21 to 27 May 2005 with the theme Nursing on the Move: Knowledge, Innovation and Vitality. It promises to be an exciting event with a list of speakers known for their knowledge of international nursing issues and for their inspirational leadership. During the Congress, Dr Margretta Madden Styles will receive the 2005 Christiane Reimann Prize for her remarkable achievements and contributions to the nursing profession internationally. We are proud and delighted that she agreed to write a guest editorial for this issue. Her subject, Regulation and profession-building: a personal perspective, could not be more topical for nurses today. Dr Styles tells us the fascinating story of her involvement with professional regulation for over 30 years. She cautions that ‘A watchful eye and a global position and strategy are essential to prevent erosion of professional self-governance as the movement progresses.’ Dr Styles concludes her guest editorial with these words, ‘Please share. What is your personal story and perspective?’ Just such a story can be found in a recent article in Nursing Inquiry on the ways in which Canadian nursing regulatory authorities have chosen to view competency. The authors, Nelson & Purkis1, address directly the third power of regulation described by Dr Styles, namely, ‘Regulation defines our scope of practice and sets standards and measures of competency.’ They provide a powerful critique of the directions that regulation can take when authorities view competence as the rehearsal of ethical attributes as opposed to the enactment of skilled conduct. Their article provides a caution to those who think that regulation is ‘other nurses’ business’ and that the fundamental principles cannot change once the parameters have been set. All nurses should remain watchful for ‘the unintended consequences of intentional human acts.’ This sociological dictum is as valid for regulation as in other areas of human activity. Of the 2500 abstracts received by ICN for Taiwan, approximately 1330 from 52 countries had been tentatively accepted as this editorial went to press. The Congress will offer 400 concurrent sessions, more than 800 posters and 80 symposia. We hope that many of those participating at Congress will consider submitting manuscripts to INR for consideration for publication. A concurrent session on Writing for Publication will be held during the Congress so that interested authors can seek advice and ask questions about getting into print. As this issue shows, nurses’ stories from around the world on a range of important topics continue to be submitted and accepted by INR. So, for those lucky enough to be going to Taiwan, enjoy Congress, and for all nurses keep your stories coming in! Please look at the new Author Guidelines before submitting your article to us, and note that a new category of short report, Experiences from the Field, is now considered. This section includes a wide range of nursing experiences, including those of students.
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 | 0,004 | 0,016 |
| 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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,004 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».