MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995123974 · doi:10.1177/0898010108318489

Scholarship

2008· review· en· W1995123974 on OpenAlexaff
Brenda Jacono, John Jacono

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Holistic Nursing · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipInstinctSociologyService (business)ChoseEpistemologyPsychologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyLawBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This article examines scholarship as a holistic process of self-discovery. METHODS: By using their own work as an exemplar, the authors illustrate how the scholarly projects they completed (whether consciously planned or not) helped them to evolve as individuals and scholars. They also demonstrate how those they chose by instinct might have helped them give more valuable service, than those they consciously planned. FINDINGS: They conclude that the scholarly journey affirms the indivisible nature of the scholar/person, and suggest reasons this idea might prove particularly useful to nursing currently.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.446
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Holistic NursingSame topicNursing Education, Practice, and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207