MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150835587 · doi:10.3928/01484834-20090716-01

Toward an Appreciation of Nursing Scholarship: Recognizing Our Traditions, Contributions, and Presence

2009· article· en· W2150835587 on OpenAlexaff
Deborah S. Thoun

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipScope (computer science)Foundation (evidence)SociologyEngineering ethicsProduct (mathematics)Process (computing)EpistemologyPolitical scienceComputer sciencePhilosophyLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The notion of scholarship as a process and product of inquiry has received abundant attention since Boyer, in association with The Carnegie Foundation, challenged the narrowly defined and restricted merit system of academe. This article examines the scope and definitions of scholarship advanced by Boyer and his colleagues with a view to surfacing the limitations that this framework places on academic disciplines that also serve professional mandates. Also presented is a framework for contemporary nursing scholarship that moves beyond Boyer's construction and captures the immensely rich and varied contributions that nursing does and can make to humankind.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations18
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing EducationSame topicNursing Education, Practice, and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207