MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170417130 · doi:10.12927/cjnl.2008.20061

Developing Leadership in Nurse Managers: The British Columbia Nursing Leadership Institute

2008· article· en· W2170417130 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Maura MacPhee, France Bouthillette

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing leadership · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipNursingCurriculumChristian ministryLeadership developmentLeadership studiesNurse educationPsychologyPolitical scienceMedicineLeadership stylePedagogyPublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The British Columbia Nursing Administrative Leadership Institute for First Line Nurse Leaders (BC NLI) is a collaborative partnership among British Columbia's Chief Nursing Officers, the Ministry of Health Nursing Directorate and the University of British Columbia School of Nursing. This initiative consists of a four-day residential program and a year-long leadership project between BC NLI participants and their organizational mentors. The evidence-based curriculum covers universal leadership and management concepts, but it also addresses leadership issues of relevance to nurse leaders in today's complex healthcare environments. The BC NLI is part of a provincial health human resources endeavour to ensure sufficient nursing leaders - for now and in the future. This paper will discuss the development, implementation and evaluation of the BC NLI. Unique aspects of the program, such as its online networking component, will be described, and its role in nursing leadership research will be briefly examined.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.747
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations24
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing leadershipSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207