Notice bibliographique
Résumé
It was with great relief and joy that, after two years' planning and with invaluable help from the first Editorial Board, the Journal of Advanced Nursing was finally launched in 1976. In my introductory editorial (Smith 1976), I stated that the aims of JAN were to become an international medium for the publication of scholarly papers and a means of documenting the growing body of nursing knowledge. A modest 39 papers were published in volume 1, mostly from UK authors but some papers were accepted from authors in Canada, Denmark, Israel and the USA. Most of the authors were nurses or midwives: eight had doctorates; 14 held masters degrees; eight held bachelor's degrees and eight were non-graduates. Among the UK authors were eight future heads of new UK university nursing departments, six of whom were subsequently created professors. In a simple content analysis of the papers published in volume 1, I have found that 46% were related to nursing or midwifery practice, 26% to nursing education, 18% were about nurses and 10% were research reports. Two papers were particularly interesting for me – one by Rosamond Gabrielson from the USA and the other by Peggy Nuttall from the UK. Miss Gabrielson discussed eruditely and in great detail the development of nursing in the USA over two centuries ‘from untrained servant to skilled practitioner' which, in many ways, reflected the experience of the UK and most other countries where the complete evolution to skilled practitioner is unfortunately still ongoing. Miss Nuttall made a valiant attempt to predict the state of UK nursing in the year 2000 after conceding that, in 1975, 90% of nursing care in the UK was being given by untrained people. Future nursing needs, in her view, required nurses to abandon the stereotype of nursing as an exclusively hospital-based activity and to nurture, positively, the concept of primary health care – a view that is constantly reiterated by desperate healthcare leaders everywhere and one with which I wholeheartedly concur. Perusing the contents of the last issue of JAN in 2015, I was quite pleased and reassured to note that my original aim of promoting the journal as an international scholarly journal and record of nursing knowledge had been well and truly accomplished. I already knew from personal communications that many authors have benefitted professionally by having their papers published in what I am proud to know is one of the most prestigious nursing journals in the world. Many thanks and congratulations to the publishers and to all my editorial collaborators and successors, as well as the authors and readers, for their contributions to the extraordinary success of JAN's first 40 years.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,044 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,017 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,013 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,036 | 0,033 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».