MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971714028 · doi:10.1891/1078-4535.19.2.81

Stories Are like Water: An Academic Writing Workshop for Nurses

2013· article· en· W1971714028 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCreative Nursing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAcademic Writing and Publishing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipNurse educatorAcademic writingMedical educationWriting centerGraduate studentsDoctor of Nursing PracticePsychologyNursingNurse educationPedagogyMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditionally, there is very little formal instruction in academic writing for nurses in graduate programs. We, the writing scholar and a nurse educator and PhD student at a major Canadian university, describe how we collaborated on developing and delivering a 1-day academic writing workshop for incoming master of nursing students. By sharing this description, we hope to motivate nursing faculty to offer similar workshops to address the dearth of writing instruction for graduate students in nursing and to improve scholarship outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.253 · 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