MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049739291 · doi:10.12927/cjnl.2013.23630

Investing in Nursing Research in Practice Settings: A Blueprint for Building Capacity

2013· article· en· W2049739291 on OpenAlex
Lianne Jeffs

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing leadership · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlueprintPoliticsNursing researchAdministration (probate law)NursingNursing practiceNursing theorySociologyPolitical scienceMEDLINEMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Engaging clinical nurses in practice-based research is a cornerstone of professional nursing practice and a critical element in the delivery of high-quality patient care. Practising staff nurses are well suited to identify the phenomena and issues that are clinically relevant and appropriate for research. In response to the need to invest in and build capacity in nursing research, hospitals have developed creative approaches to spark interest in nursing research and to equip clinical nurses with research competencies. This paper outlines a Canadian hospital's efforts to build research capacity as a key strategy to foster efficacious, safe and cost-effective patient care practices. Within a multi-pronged framework, several strategies are described that collectively resulted in enhanced research and knowledge translation productivity aimed at improving the delivery of safe and high-quality patient care.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), 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 score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
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 head0.561
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.014 · 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