MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152689332 · doi:10.1177/0894318407306525

Envisioning Nursing in 2050 Through the Eyes of Nurse Theorists: Rosemarie Rizzo Parse and Martha E. Rogers

2007· article· en· W2152689332 on OpenAlexaff
F. Beryl Pilkington

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Science Quarterly · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDignityNursingOntologyParsingHealth careSociologyPsychologyMedicineEpistemologyComputer sciencePhilosophyArtificial intelligenceLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rosemarie Rizzo Parse and Rogerian scholar, Violet Malinski, on behalf of Martha E. Rogers, envision how their respective theoretical ideas will be expressed in 2050. Parse introduces several changes highlighting the idea of indivisible cocreation in the ontology of the humanbecoming school of thought and concomitant changes in the wording of its principles. Notions of human freedom and dignity will be extremely important given increasingly mechanized healthcare. Malinski describes Rogerian formulations for practice and research that will continue to facilitate well-being for humankind and the environment. She also addresses challenges and opportunities for an evolving science of unitary human beings.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.451 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing Science QuarterlySame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207