Bibliographic record
Abstract
The beginning of wisdom, according to Confucius, is to call things by their right names. Language should always bear the same meaning, so that the meaning of words (names) and the duties and responsibilities which go with them are universally understood. However, when applie to the word ‘nurse’, particularly in the UK, this is clearly not the case. The evident confusion among the public, press and in some sections, the nursing profession around who or what this constitutes, has meant that ‘nurse’ appears to be a default term of reference to describe someone involved in the delivery of care in hospital and healthcare settings. The continued torpor of the profession in acknowledging, let alone challenging, this state of affairs, is to put it mildly, alarming, not least because of the currently hostile economic and cultural climate in which UK nursing finds itself.
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 | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.049 |
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".