Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence-based practice (EBP) has become a real buzz word, not only in the discipline of nursing, but in all healthcare professions. EBP has been identified as the foundation of accountable, professional nursing practice and it would seem that few could argue with the apparent benefits; however, debate does exist in the literature about whether EBP can realistically be attained. As such, a critical discourse regarding the future of EBP for nursing needs to occur. One of the key questions to be addressed through this discourse is, "what counts as evidence?" A review of the nursing literature on the concept of EBP will be presented in this paper along with a discussion of several of the issues associated with EBP within the discipline of nursing. I will also present some ideas about the implications of the EBP movement in nursing and examine the future pathways for nursing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.262 | 0.194 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.040 | 0.076 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.033 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".