MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048879885 · doi:10.12968/npre.2004.2.4.15366

The progress of nurse prescribing: a commentary

2004· article· en· W2048879885 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eleanor Bradley, Peter Nolan

Bibliographic record

VenueNurse Prescribing · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormularyMedicineGovernment (linguistics)Quarter (Canadian coin)NursingRhetoricSet (abstract data type)Scale (ratio)Family medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The government set a target in 2002 to have 10000 nurses qualified as supplementary and extended formulary prescribers by the end of 2004. In retrospect, this was optimistic. Despite the rhetoric, and the exhortations from ministers and managers, the uptake of training for nurse prescribing has been slow. Recent figures from the Department of Health (DH) suggest that there are currently 1807 nurses registered to prescribe from the Extended Formulary, and 1087 nurses registered as supplementary prescribers (Mullally, 2004). Of the 1087 supplementary prescribers, only 110 are mental health nurses and a quarter of those are employed by one trust. However, such modest progress is not perhaps surprising considering the scale of the innovation and the fact that nurses often combine a desire to be progressive with a cautious attitude.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNurse PrescribingSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207