MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122050828 · doi:10.12968/bjon.2013.22.14.836

South American legal perspective on professional nursing

2013· review· en· W2122050828 on OpenAlex
Fagner Alfredo Ardisson Cirino Campos, Oleg Nekrassovski

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

VenueBritish Journal of Nursing · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Health in Brazil
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationNursingCompetence (human resources)MedicinePerspective (graphical)Professional associationPolitical sciencePsychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study involved a literature review aimed at describing the professional duties, stipulated in federal legislation, of nursing professionals in South America. According to the federal legislation that regulates the professional nursing practice, nurses are supposed to apply their skills and knowledge in an autonomous and secure way. Since it is through this legislation that professional competence of nurses is determined, the laws of each South American nation were consulted, to see how professional nursing functions differ according to each. In general, according to the South American federal nursing legislations, professional nursing practice must be grounded in quality patient care and good nursing administration.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.393 · 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