MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156110969 · doi:10.12927/cjnl.2008.19690

Nursing Scope of Practice: Descriptions and Challenges

2008· article· en· W2156110969 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing leadership · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope of practiceNursingScope (computer science)WorkforceHealth careWork (physics)FeelingEconomic shortageNurse educationTeam nursingMedicinePsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nursing workforce is faced with shortages of near crisis proportions, yet little is understood about the optimal utilization of various categories of nurses - Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs), Registered Nurses (RNs) and Registered Psychiatric Nurses (RPNs). The primary purpose in this study was to elicit the perceptions of nurses (RNs, LPNs, and RPNs) of what "working to full scope of practice" meant to them. Participants included acute care nurses in three health regions in western Canada. A key finding from the study was the fact that nurses most often discussed scope of practice by reference to the tasks they perform, rather than the roles they play in healthcare delivery. Assessment and coordination of care were two components of nursing work that most differentiated the three nursing roles. Nonetheless, insufficient role differentiation among nurses and between nurses and other healthcare professionals leaves some nurses feeling devalued and not respected for their contribution to healthcare delivery.

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.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.870

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.584
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.116 · 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