MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Critical practice in nursing care: analysis, action and reflexivity

2006· review· en· W2029552750 on OpenAlexaff
Fiona Timmins

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Standard · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflexivityAction (physics)Nursing practiceNursingPsychologyMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines critical practice and its underlying principles: analysis, action and reflexivity. Critical analysis involves the examination of knowledge that underpins practice. Critical action requires nurses to assess their skills and identify potential gaps in need of professional development. Critical reflexivity is personal analysis that involves challenging personal beliefs and assumptions to improve professional and personal practice. Incorporating these aspects into nursing can benefit nursing 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.

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.032
Scholarly communication0.0160.014
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.428 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations27
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing StandardSame topicNursing Education, Practice, and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207