MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166817115 · doi:10.1177/0894318407299558

Envisioning Nursing in 2050 Through the Eyes of Nurse Theorists: King, Neuman, and Roy

2007· article· en· W2166817115 on OpenAlexaff
F. Beryl Pilkington

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Science Quarterly · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptation (eye)Nursing theoryNursing processProcess (computing)Health careQuality (philosophy)Conceptual modelDatabase transactionPsychologyNursingSociologyEpistemologyComputer scienceMEDLINEMedicinePhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nurse theorists King, Neuman, and Roy envision how their theoretical ideas will be expressed in the world in 2050, anticipating the challenges and opportunities that will be presented. King suggests that her conceptual system, theory of goal attainment, and transaction process provide the structure and process that lead to cost effective, quality care. Neuman and Reed propose that the Neuman systems model will continue to help nurses and others to meet healthcare planning and implementation needs of client systems. Roy describes how her philosophical beliefs and adaptation model will be relevant to the health and quality of life of integrated persons and environment in 2050.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.335 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing Science QuarterlySame topicNursing Education, Practice, and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207