MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995451783 · doi:10.12927/cjnl.2003.16235

Learning Circles: Collaborating to Promote RN and LPN Role Enhancement

2003· article· en· W1995451783 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Joanna Bennett

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing leadership · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsSt. John’s Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTeamworkNursingHealth careScope (computer science)Scope of practicePsychologyMedicinePolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent events in the Newfoundland and Labrador healthcare system, including changes to nursing scope of practice, have had a profound effect on practice environments for direct care registered nurses (RNs) and Licensed practical nurses (LPNs). This article describes an initiative introduced by the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador (ARNNL) and the Council for Licensed Practical Nurses (CLPN) in response to concerns raised by healthcare providers related to collaboration and teamwork between RNs and LPNs. Through the Learning Circles Project, the ARNNL and CLPN committed to fostering an improved working relationship for nursing team members based on the values of working together, mutual respect and an enhanced working environment.

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)0.001
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 score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.877

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing leadershipSame topicInterprofessional Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207