Worldwide overview of critical care nursing organizations and their activities
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
While critical care has been a specialty within nursing for almost 50 years, with many countries having professional organizations representing these nurses, it is only recently that the formation of an international society has been considered. A three-phased study was planned: the aim of the first phase was to identify critical care organizations worldwide; the aim of the second was to describe the characteristics of these organizations, including their issues and activities; and the aim of the third was to plan for an international society, if international support was evident. In the first phase, contacts in 44 countries were identified using a number of strategies. In the second phase, 24 (55%) countries responded to a survey about their organizations. Common issues for critical care nurses were identified, including concerns over staffing levels, working conditions, educational programme standards and wages. Critical care nursing organizations were generally favourable towards the notion of establishing a World Federation of their respective societies. Some of the important issues that will need to be addressed in the lead up to the formation of such a federation are now being considered.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it