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 OpenAlexaffabout
Madeline Walker, Coby Tschanz

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0120.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.010
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.005

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

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
GenreOther

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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCreative NursingSame topicAcademic Writing and PublishingFrench-language works237,207