MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025068750 · doi:10.1097/nna.0b013e31824337f4

Measuring Actual Scope of Nursing Practice

2012· article· en· W2025068750 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJONA The Journal of Nursing Administration · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsScope (computer science)Scope of practiceNursingReliability (semiconductor)Face validityNursing practiceMedicineClinical PracticeDimension (graph theory)PsychometricsHealth careComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: : This project describes the development and testing of the actual scope of nursing practice questionnaire. BACKGROUND: : Underutilization of the skill sets of registered nurses (RNs) is a widespread concern. Cost-effective, safe, and efficient care requires support by management to facilitate the implementation of nursing practice at the full scope. METHODS: : Literature review, expert consultation, and face validity testing were used in item development. The instrument was tested with 285 nurses in 22 medical units in 11 hospitals in Canada. RESULTS: : The 26-item, 6-dimension questionnaire demonstrated validity and reliability. The responses suggest that nurses practice at less than their optimal scope, with key dimensions of professional practice being implemented infrequently. CONCLUSIONS: : This instrument can help nurse leaders increase the effective use of RN time in carrying out the full scope of their professional practice.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.300 · 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