Leaders Hold an Invitational Think Tank on Undergraduate Nursing Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to the Canadian Nurses Association National Expert Commission's Call to Action (NEC 2012), a focused meeting of nurse leaders was convened at (NEC) Dalhousie University in early November 2012.Hosted by the School of Nursing in collaboration with CNA, the purpose of the Think Tank was to initiate dialogue on how to respond to the report's recommendation regarding reform of Canadian nursing education and to consider potential preliminary actions.The overarching goal of the meeting was to serve as a catalyzing force, identifying ideas about how best to move from the NEC's report to a design for action.To quote Florence Nightingale, "Reports are not self-executive," 1 and we were keen to support the NEC's work by initiating a much-needed dialogue.In preparing for the Think Tank, invitees representing education, service and policy were offered a reading list that included a number of recent reports touching on reform of nursing entry-to-practice education to inform the discussion.
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 | 0.030 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".