The power and politics of collaboration in nurse practitioner role development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This health services study employed participatory action research to engage nurse practitioners (NPs) from two health authorities in British Columbia, Canada, to examine the research question: How does collaboration advance NP role integration within primary health-care? The inquiry was significant and timely because the NP role was recently introduced into the province, supported by passage of legislation and regulation and introduction of graduate education programs. In separate and concurrent inquiry groups, the NPs discussed their practice patterns, role development progress and understanding of collaboration and role integration. The inquiry revealed the political nature of the NP role and the extent to which NPs relied on collaborative relations at all levels of the health system to advance role integration. Given that NP role development is still at an early stage in this province, as well as other provinces in Canada, this study provides important insights into the power and politics of role development, and offers direction for future role advancement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.099 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.053 | 0.100 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".