MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974480976 · doi:10.1177/1744987107083544

Career planning and development needs of rural and remote nurses

2008· article· en· W1974480976 on OpenAlexaffabout
Linda M. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of research in nursing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCareer developmentCareer planningWork (physics)NursingCareer PathwaysMedical educationNeeds assessmentPsychologyMedicineSociologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The overall purpose of this study was to examine the career planning and development needs of registered nurses (RNs) working in native reserves and in Inuit communities in rural and remote areas of Ontario, Canada. A total of 142 surveys were sent out, and 68 questionnaires were returned for an overall response rate of 48%. Nurses are adept at scanning the work environment, conducting self-assessments and reality checks of their workplace. At the same time, they require further direction in developing a career vision and understanding their future career options. The research provides evidence that career planning may contribute to nursing retention.

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 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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.221
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of research in nursingSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207