MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123148091 · doi:10.1177/0894318406287490

Challenging the Atheoretical Production of Nursing Knowledge: A Response to Reed and Rolfe’s Column

2006· review· en· W2123148091 on OpenAlexaff
Gail J. Mitchell, Debra A. Bournes

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Science Quarterly · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColumn (typography)Production (economics)NursingPsychologyMedicineComputer scienceEconomicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This column is a response to Reed and Rolfe's column in the January 2006 issue of Nursing Science Quarterly. The authors present their views about Reed and Rolfe's ideas by focusing their discussion and questions on three main topics: the impact of nurses' conceptual thinking, values, and culture on their perspectives and experiences; the reality that nursing theory-guided practice is already a meaningful reality in nursing; and the belief that in order not to limit knowledge development, science must be viewed as more than a study of proximal causes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0100.017
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0160.029
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.350 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing Science QuarterlySame topicNursing Education, Practice, and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207