MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035080786 · doi:10.2202/1548-923x.1454

Creating a Community of Scholars: Using a Community Development Approach to Foster Scholarship with Nursing Faculty

2008· article· en· W2035080786 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicService-Learning and Community Engagement
Canadian institutionsNorth Island CollegeOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipSociologyNursing researchEngaged scholarshipNurse educatorNursingService (business)Nurse educationMedical educationMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many nurse educators in Canada have participated in a culture where their primary responsibility was to educate nurses and provide service to their communities. Over the last three decades, major rethinking of this focus has resulted in the expectation that nurse educators engage in scholarship. In this paper, we describe a community development project designed to foster nurse educators' scholarship. This approach was chosen not only to build scholarship capacity amongst nursing faculty, but also to effect a change in the culture of scholarship prevalent in many academic environments. Rather than focusing on individual scholarly endeavours, the project partners' vision is for a collaborative approach that creates a community of scholars working together.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.374
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.321
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.140 · 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