The middle‐range theory of nursing intellectual capital
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
AIM: This paper is a report of the development of the middle-range theory of nursing intellectual capital. BACKGROUND: Rising healthcare costs and advances in technology have contributed to the need for better understanding of the influence of nurses' knowledge, skills and experience on patient and organizational outcomes. METHOD: The middle-range nursing intellectual capital theory was developed using the strategies of concept and theory derivation. The principles of research synthesis were used to provide empirical support for the propositions of the theory. FINDINGS: The middle-range nursing intellectual capital theory was derived from intellectual capital theory to make it relevant and applicable to a specific aspect of nursing, continuing professional development. It proposes that the nursing knowledge available in healthcare organizations is influenced by variables within the work environment, and influences patient and organizational outcomes. CONCLUSION: The middle-range nursing intellectual capital theory should be tested in different healthcare systems and in different settings and countries to determine its effectiveness in guiding research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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