Nurse practitioners in Canada: Beginnings, benefits, and barriers
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The goal of this qualitative study was to investigate the experiences of nurse practitioners (NPs) 1 year after they were first introduced to a mostly rural Canadian province. DATA SOURCES: Qualitative analyses of individual 45-min interviews with seven of the nine NPs in the province were carried out. CONCLUSIONS: Three main themes of importance were identified. First, a nursing philosophy with a holistic approach was described as being clearly different from medical care. Second, difficulties and barriers encountered in the establishment of the profession in the province were described. Third, despite these barriers, a pioneering outlook characterized by a sense of excitement and pride in the work was expressed. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: For NPs to work effectively to reduce healthcare costs and increase access to health care, they need to be accepted by both the public and the other healthcare professionals. Moreover, it may be difficult for NPs to maintain their philosophy of care in the face of the expectations placed upon them.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it