Furthering Nursing Scholarship in Today’s Postsecondary Institutions: The Legacy of Ernest Boyer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nursing faculty members are often frustrated with, resentful of, or intimidated by the research and scholarship requirements expected of them today. The discussion in this paper is intended to aid nursing faculty members’ understanding of their work in the context of the current trends in research and scholarship in North American post-secondary institutions. Nursing faculty members require a clear understanding of Boyer’s four domains of scholarship, as they form the basis of quality indicators in both Canadian and United States accreditation programs for baccalaureate programs. Boyer’s domains of scholarship must be understood in the historical context in which they were developed, but also with respect to their relevance to today. This context includes: the prominence of interdisciplinary and interprofessional practice and research; the community engagement agenda for today’s higher education institutions; the importance of applied research in the Canadian college sector today; and the move to baccalaureate education as the entry level education for practice in Canada. Nursing faculty members today have rich opportunities for scholarship with their involvement in interprofessional research and education, clinical practice, community engagement, social justice, and innovative pedagogy.
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 | 0.029 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".