MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1536654302

A Rose By Any Other Name?: Specialism, Genericism and the Diminution of Psychiatric/Mental Health Nursing (Part 1)

2005· article· en· W1536654302 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John R. Cutcliffe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bioresource Management · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHistorical Psychiatry and Medical Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRose (mathematics)NursingMental healthPsychologyNurse educationMedicinePsychiatryBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In part one of this paper I introduced the issue of specialism or generic preparation for P/MH nurses and proceeded to review the ‘Canadian evidence’; such as it is. I summarized student feedback comment pertinent to this issue and began to respond to the U.Victoria and U.B.C. responses to the proposals to inaugurate a Baccalaureate in Psychiatric Nursing. Part two continues this response, draws upon relevant international evidence, predicates the important differences between generic and specialist nurses and reflects on a few interesting ‘after thoughts’.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.024
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bioresource ManagementSame topicHistorical Psychiatry and Medical PracticesFrench-language works237,207