MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000610699 · doi:10.12968/bjon.2011.20.5.306

Developing leadership in nursing: exploring core factors

2011· article· en· W2000610699 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Nursing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderpinningLeadership studiesNursingLeadership developmentNeuroleadershipLeadership styleNurse educationEducational leadershipShared leadershipPsychologyMedical educationMedicinePedagogyPolitical sciencePublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article provides an introduction to the issue of nursing leadership, addressing definitions and theories underpinning leadership, factors that enhance leadership in nursing, and the nature of leadership content taught in undergraduate programmes. Highlighted are differences between leadership and management, and the notion that leadership can be 'learned'. The authors also point out that there is a discrepancy between how leading undergraduate nursing programmes prepare students primarily in the transition of education to practice, and the suggestion from a number of nursing publications that leadership in nurses should be fostered throughout their education.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.525
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.157 · 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