British Columbia: Improving Retention and Recruitment in Smaller Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This pilot project involved the application, in Canada, of the innovative 80/20 staffing model to a hospital in a small rural setting.The model provides the voluntary participants with 20% of their salaried time off from direct patient care in order to pursue various types of professional development activities.The project, overseen by a steering committee, lasted from June 2009 to February 2010 and involved 14 nurses on the pediatric unit of Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops, British Columbia.It entailed a collaborative partnership of the British Columbia Nurses' Union, Interior Health Authority, Thompson Rivers University and the British Columbia Ministry of Health, and aimed to demonstrate how professional development opportunities can improve recruitment and retention of nurses, quality of work life and quality of patient care. ObjectivesThis project set out to demonstrate how a model that promotes professional development opportunities for both new and experienced nurses in one unit will enhance their work experience and leadership capacity, create a positive work environment and lead to better recruitment and retention of nurses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".