MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168987957 · doi:10.1177/2158244014560534

Nursing Professional Organizations

2014· article· en· W2168987957 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

VenueSAGE Open · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)NursingPoliticsProfessional associationPolitical actionProfessional developmentPolicy developmentHealth policyPublic relationsAction (physics)MedicinePolitical sciencePsychologyMedical educationPublic administrationPublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nurses have great potential to contribute to the development of health policy through political action. We undertook a systematic website review of international- and national-level professional nursing organizations to determine how they engaged registered nurses in health policy activities, including policy priority setting, policy goals and objectives, policy products, and mechanisms for engaging nurses in policy issues. We reviewed 38 organizations for eligibility and 15 organization websites met our inclusion criteria. Six professional nursing organizations had comprehensive websites with a discussion of specific policy goals and objectives, policy-related products and mechanisms for nurses to become engaged. Future research is needed to evaluate how nursing professional organizations establish policy priorities and to evaluate the effectiveness of the strategies used to politically engage nurses.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.334 · 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