Bibliographic record
Abstract
Around the time that I was asked to write this column, the January 2003 issue of Canadian Nurse arrived in my mailbox. In the column “Nurse to Know,” Barbara Sibbald introduced us to Michelle Inder-Milley, a 25-year-old nurse from Newfoundland. InderMilley has a clear sense that nursing leadership lies within the purview of every nurse and that leadership is about making a difference. She talks about leadership potential that emerges from overcoming limitations, using one’s full potential and having a vision and passion for nursing. Her view is that nurses must be leaders for the sake of themselves, their patients and the profession. Leadership in nursing easily brings to mind images of nurse managers, executive nurses and nurses in academia. In these roles, leadership is formalized and integrated into the qualifications, expectations and professional development of the incumbents. If you look a little harder, it is not difficult to find examples of informal leadership in nursing when you consider nurses who go beyond their regular duties to organize educational events, participate in professional associations or volunteer in health-related community events. But Inder-Milley challenges me to think about how leadership in nursing practice is expressed at the very front line, where nurses in staff positions (without formal leadership roles) interact with patients and families. What are the leadership behaviours and attributes that we expect, recognize and seek to develop at this level? What is it that enables one young nurse to be clear and articulate about leadership, when so many others in the profession express discouragement and defeat? Across a wide range of literature there is no tidy, concise definition of leadership, but there is agreement that Leadership Is Present in the Commonplace Acts
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".