MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108265786 · doi:10.12927/cjnl.2004.16346

Dancing to Our Own Tune: Understandings of Advanced Nursing Practice in British Columbia

2004· article· en· W2108265786 on OpenAlex
Bernie Pauly, Rita Schreiber, Marjorie MacDonald, Heather Davidson, Jane Crickmore, Lesley Moss, Janet Pinelli, Sandra Regan, Carolyn Hammond

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 · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)ConfusionNursingNursing practiceHealth careSociologyPsychologyMedicinePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been ongoing confusion about the meaning of advanced nursing practice (ANP) and the nature of ANP roles in Canada and elsewhere. A broad range of roles and titles have been adopted throughout Canada in an attempt to delineate specialized and/or advanced roles within nursing. One key objective in a recent three-phase study of ANP in British Columbia was to clarify the role and understanding of advanced nursing practice and related roles within the larger healthcare system. Our intent in this paper is to describe the understandings of ANP that emerged in Phase I of this recent study and to compare registered nurses' understandings of ANP to the characteristics and competencies identified by the Canadian Nurses Association (2002) framework. (Note: The term "nurse," as used in this paper, refers to "registered nurse.") We conclude by identifying future directions for development of advanced practice roles.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.251 · 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