Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autonomy has been viewed as a key indicator of disciplinary professionalization. Nursing autonomy has been identified as an important variable that affects nurses’ perceptions of job satisfaction, positive professional practice environments, and quality nursing care. The assumption that a key feature of nursing autonomy is the exercise of independent judgment and practice was challenged in an interpretive study that explored how nurses understand autonomy in their everyday clinical practice and worklife. This paper describes the research project, and explores nurses’ emphasis on the relational features inherent in the exercise of autonomy in their clinical work. Their descriptions of relationships with physicians, nursing peers, and nurse managers offered ample instances whereby autonomous practice could be supported and enhanced. This paper will also discuss these possibilities for enabling nursing autonomy in relation to three key areas: generating practice environments that nurture clinical expertise and decision-making; enabling nurses to practice to the full scope of their education, experience, and competence; and fostering collaborative multidisciplinary practice.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it