Notice bibliographique
Résumé
he journey to this issue on the National Council Licensure Examination (NCLEX) began when the CJNL editorial director received two unsolicited NCLEX-focused manuscripts for consideration to publish.Adding to the growing body of articles and news stories published about the NCLEX since its 2015 implementation in Canada, the two papers revealed that the NCLEX-RN remains a controversial and unresolved issue for our profession.CJNL has long published special issues to focus attention on specific topics.Such focused publication creates a convenient repository of knowledge and information about a given subject, facilitating deeper exploration of the issue and serving as a historical reference point for the topic going forward.This issue continues that tradition by presenting 10 papers that discuss the NCLEX from the perspectives of researchers, policy makers, educators, students and a coalition of nurses that is vigorously advocating for remedies to address the disproportionately adverse impact of the NCLEX on students and especially on francophone writers.As CJNL's editor for policy and innovation, I was asked to serve as guest editor for this issue, and it has been my privilege to do so.A registered nurse for more than four decades, I have an abiding interest in the structure, power and politics of our profession, including the principle of self-regulation granted to nursing and other health professions through legislation and regulation in Canada.By way of self-disclosure, I was the Canadian Nurses Association's (CNA) president-elect from 2010 to 2012, during which time the Canadian Council of Registered Nurse Regulators (CCRNR) was formed and subsequently (in 2011) announced the change to the NCLEX from the Canadian Registered Nurse Examination, which had been owned and administered by CNA as the entry-to-practice examination for the profession.It is important to note that in the course of preparing this issue, outreach was made to CCRNR by CJNL's editor-in-chief (Dr.Lynn Nagle) on two occasions: first as the issue was being planned and again when the last of the 10 papers had been received.On both occasions, CCRNR was invited to contribute its perspectives.A response was received to the second communication stating that CCRNR was unable to contribute but appreciated the offer.The e-mail also asked if the articles could be shared prior to publication.As it is not customary to share articles in press, the request was declined.
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 | 0,014 | 0,033 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,080 | 0,020 |
| Communication savante | 0,022 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,014 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,012 | 0,018 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,012 | 0,001 |
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 ».