Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article calls upon Canadian nursing leaders to examine the merits and downsides of the new practice doctorate degree - the Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP). The impetus for the DNP arose from within the American nursing profession in order to address the knowledge and skills needed by advanced practice nurses to work in today's complex healthcare environment. The DNP is the newest practice doctorate degree and in 2015 will be the entry to practice degree required of all new advanced practice nurses in the United States. Advanced practice nurses who will have the practice doctorate include clinical nurse specialists, nurse practitioners, nurse midwives and nurse anaesthetists. With the establishment and acceptance of the DNP in the United States, American advanced practice nurses will have a different knowledge base than Canadian advanced practice nurses. The evolution and state of advanced practice nursing in Canada are discussed in this article. Canadian nursing leaders must discuss the DNP, its merits and downsides within the Canadian context and begin to make informed decisions about whether or not the DNP should come to Canada.
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 | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".