MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163319213 · doi:10.1177/0894318403016003011

Nursing Shortage or Nursing Famine: Looking Beyond Numbers?

2003· review· en· W2163319213 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Science Quarterly · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFamineEconomic shortageWorkforceNursingNursing shortageNurse educationMedicinePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are numerous references in the nursing literature and in the popular press that offer description and commentary on the history, evolution, and future of the global nursing shortage. Authors express concerns about declining nursing numbers, nursing layoffs, diminishing student enrollments, faculty retirements, the aging workforce, and global recruitments. But what is missing in these articles and news alerts is a questioning about the substantive knowledge of nursing and what role this knowledge, or lack of, has in light of shrinking nursing resources. Of interest in this column are the meanings and messages that the nursing shortage has for nurses and for decision makers who will shape the direction of the nursing discipline. Issues connected with the global nursing shortage, or is it better thought of as a famine, are examined here in order to elucidate some points that may prove helpful for decisions of tomorrow.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.360 · 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