MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971166039 · doi:10.12927/cjnl.2006.18172

The Joint Venture Model of Knowledge Utilization: A Guide for Change in Nursing

2006· review· en· W1971166039 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Linda Edgar, Rosemary Herbert, Sylvie Lambert, Jo-Ann MacDonald, Sylvie Dubois, Margot Latimer

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing leadership · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJoint venturePerspective (graphical)Multidisciplinary approachHealth careKnowledge transferPoliticsKnowledge managementNursingContext (archaeology)PsychologyConceptual modelSociologyBusinessMedicinePolitical scienceComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge utilization (KU) is an essential component of today's nursing practice and healthcare system. Despite advances in knowledge generation, the gap in knowledge transfer from research to practice continues. KU models have moved beyond factors affecting the individual nurse to a broader perspective that includes the practice environment and the socio-political context. This paper proposes one such theoretical model the Joint Venture Model of Knowledge Utilization (JVMKU). Key components of the JVMKU that emerged from an extensive multidisciplinary review of the literature include leadership, emotional intelligence, person, message, empowered workplace and the socio-political environment. The model has a broad and practical application and is not specific to one type of KU or one population. This paper provides a description of the JVMKU, its development and suggested uses at both local and organizational levels. Nurses in both leadership and point-of-care positions will recognize the concepts identified and will be able to apply this model for KU in their own workplace for assessment of areas requiring strengthening and support.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.017
Scholarly communication0.0080.015
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.894
GPT teacher head0.628
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations33
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing leadershipSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207