MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128635976 · doi:10.1177/0894318407303109

The Power of Imagination: Picturing Practice in 2050

2007· letter· en· W2128635976 on OpenAlexaff
Gail J. Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Science Quarterly · 2007
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursing theoryNursing practiceColumn (typography)Unitary statePower (physics)Clinical PracticeEpistemologyPsychologySociologyNursingMEDLINEMedicineComputer sciencePhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The practice columns in this 20th anniversary year are focused on how nursing theory-based practice might evolve and unfold in the future. In this column, nurses affiliated with Neuman's systems model and Rogers' science of unitary human beings imagine what nursing practice guided by their respective theories might look in 2050 and beyond.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.032
Scholarly communication0.0140.019
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0170.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.324 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing Science QuarterlySame topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207