Bibliographic record
Abstract
The publication of this issue coincides with the ICN 23rd Quadrennial Congress in Taipei, Taiwan, to be held from 21 to 27 May 2005 with the theme Nursing on the Move: Knowledge, Innovation and Vitality. It promises to be an exciting event with a list of speakers known for their knowledge of international nursing issues and for their inspirational leadership. During the Congress, Dr Margretta Madden Styles will receive the 2005 Christiane Reimann Prize for her remarkable achievements and contributions to the nursing profession internationally. We are proud and delighted that she agreed to write a guest editorial for this issue. Her subject, Regulation and profession-building: a personal perspective, could not be more topical for nurses today. Dr Styles tells us the fascinating story of her involvement with professional regulation for over 30 years. She cautions that ‘A watchful eye and a global position and strategy are essential to prevent erosion of professional self-governance as the movement progresses.’ Dr Styles concludes her guest editorial with these words, ‘Please share. What is your personal story and perspective?’ Just such a story can be found in a recent article in Nursing Inquiry on the ways in which Canadian nursing regulatory authorities have chosen to view competency. The authors, Nelson & Purkis1, address directly the third power of regulation described by Dr Styles, namely, ‘Regulation defines our scope of practice and sets standards and measures of competency.’ They provide a powerful critique of the directions that regulation can take when authorities view competence as the rehearsal of ethical attributes as opposed to the enactment of skilled conduct. Their article provides a caution to those who think that regulation is ‘other nurses’ business’ and that the fundamental principles cannot change once the parameters have been set. All nurses should remain watchful for ‘the unintended consequences of intentional human acts.’ This sociological dictum is as valid for regulation as in other areas of human activity. Of the 2500 abstracts received by ICN for Taiwan, approximately 1330 from 52 countries had been tentatively accepted as this editorial went to press. The Congress will offer 400 concurrent sessions, more than 800 posters and 80 symposia. We hope that many of those participating at Congress will consider submitting manuscripts to INR for consideration for publication. A concurrent session on Writing for Publication will be held during the Congress so that interested authors can seek advice and ask questions about getting into print. As this issue shows, nurses’ stories from around the world on a range of important topics continue to be submitted and accepted by INR. So, for those lucky enough to be going to Taiwan, enjoy Congress, and for all nurses keep your stories coming in! Please look at the new Author Guidelines before submitting your article to us, and note that a new category of short report, Experiences from the Field, is now considered. This section includes a wide range of nursing experiences, including those of students.
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 | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.111 | 0.041 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".