MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Knowledge Development and Evidence-based Practice

2007· article· en· W2015554232 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

VenueAdvances in Nursing Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Competency in Health Care
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformative learningContext (archaeology)FeminismNursing literatureStandardizationEvidence-based practiceHealth careInterpretation (philosophy)EpistemologySociologyPsychologyEngineering ethicsMedicinePedagogyPolitical scienceAlternative medicineLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although not without its critics, evidence-based practice is widely espoused as supporting professional nursing practice. Engaging with the evidence-based practice discourse from a vantage point offered by the critical perspectives of postcolonial feminism, the incomplete epistemologies and limitations of the standardization characteristic of the evidences-based movement are analyzed. Critical analysis of evidence is suggested, such that it recognizes the evidence generated from multiple paradigms of inquiry, along with contextual interpretation and application of this evidence. We examine how broader interpretations of evidence might contribute to nursing knowledge development and translation for transformative professional nursing practice, and ultimately to address persistent health disparities within the complex context of healthcare delivery.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.906

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.418 · 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