Education: Reaping What We Sow: Nursing Education and Leadership in Canada and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
United States have a tremendous responsibility in relation to leadership and the nursing profession. Nursing schools are charged with ensuring that graduates are competent practitioners. Moreover, graduates must actualize leadership within the profession. Leadership occurs at those relationship intersections where nurses come into contact with the public: patients and families, agencies and institutions, the healthcare system and government at all levels. The seeds of leadership are planted in entry-to-practice programs, taking root and growing strong in supportive practice settings. It is at the master’s and doctoral levels of education that many of our leaders fully blossom in all nursing domains: practice, education, administration and research. When we (Gregory, Russell) reflect on our roles as clinicians, educators, researchers and education administrators over the past two decades, we can make two major observations: • The development of our leadership skills was mostly ad hoc, “on the job” and occasionally “post-hoc.” There was no systematic or integrated leadership immersion within and across the programs we completed. The seeds of leadership were scattered haphazardly. Ongoing and sustained nurturing with respect to leadership was lacking. Leaders most often grew by chance, in spite of what was or was not done to enhance that growth. • Explicit leadership connections among education, practice, administration and research were often Reaping What We Sow: Nursing Education and Leadership in Canada and the United States
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".