MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074082537 · doi:10.1177/1527154406293683

The Road Less Traveled: Nursing Advocacy at the Policy Level

2006· article· en· W2074082537 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.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy Politics & Nursing Practice · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A frequent observation made about nursing advocacy at the policy level is its absence-or at least its invisibility. Yet there is a persistent belief that nurses will participate in advocacy at the societal level in matters of health. Although gaps exist in our knowledge about how to advocate at the policy level, the authors suggest that a number of other factors contribute to the disconnect between what nurses are expected to do in terms of policy advocacy and what they actually do. There are two main purposes in this article: to review the epistemological foundations of advocacy in nursing, and to present a discussion of other factors that limit our participation in policy advocacy. The authors discuss challenges within the discipline, in the practice context, and at the interface of the worlds of policy and nursing practice. The article concludes with a discussion of possible strategies for moving forward.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.333 · 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