Evaluation of a Leadership Development Intervention
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parallel to the shortage of clinical nurses is the diminishing pool of nurses who aspire to leadership roles in healthcare. The authors of this paper report on the evaluation of an intervention administered to a group of Canadian nurses designed to assist participants to value leadership and to develop knowledge, skills and attitudes required for effective leadership. A one-group pre-test, post-test quasi-experimental design guided the study. All participants received a five-day residential leadership development intervention. Participants acted as their own controls and were assessed, both immediately before intervention implementation and three months later, on the self- and observer-reported leadership practices as well as self-reported levels of burnout. Results indicated that a concentrated, residential leadership development intervention is effective in strengthening leadership behaviours performed by both already established and aspiring nurse leaders from the perspective of observers, but not from self-reported assessments. No significant changes in self-reported burnout levels were found. It is possible to deliver leadership development interventions to both established and aspiring nurse leaders that result in fairly rapid improvements in observed leadership practices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it