MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008566525 · doi:10.12927/cjnl.2010.21729

NursesforTomorrow: A Proactive Approach to Nursing Resource Analysis

2010· article· en· W2008566525 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Debra A. Bournes, Carolyn Plummer, Robert V. Miller, Mary Ferguson-Paré

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing leadership · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvertimeNursingStaffingUnit (ring theory)Agency (philosophy)Process (computing)Resource (disambiguation)Health careBusinessPsychologyMedicineComputer scienceSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the background, development, implementation and utilization of NursesforTomorrow (N4T), a practical and comprehensive nursing human resources analysis method to capture regional, institutional and patient care unit-specific actual and predicted nurse vacancies, nurse staff characteristics and nurse staffing changes. Reports generated from the process include forecasted shortfalls or surpluses of nurses, percentage of novice nurses, occupancy, sick time, overtime, agency use and other metrics. Readers will benefit from a description of the ways in which the data generated from the nursing resource analysis process are utilized at senior leadership, program and unit levels to support proactive hiring and resource allocation decisions and to predict unit-specific recruitment and retention patterns across multiple healthcare organizations and regions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.232
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing leadershipSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207