Bibliographic record
Abstract
It was with great relief and joy that, after two years' planning and with invaluable help from the first Editorial Board, the Journal of Advanced Nursing was finally launched in 1976. In my introductory editorial (Smith 1976), I stated that the aims of JAN were to become an international medium for the publication of scholarly papers and a means of documenting the growing body of nursing knowledge. A modest 39 papers were published in volume 1, mostly from UK authors but some papers were accepted from authors in Canada, Denmark, Israel and the USA. Most of the authors were nurses or midwives: eight had doctorates; 14 held masters degrees; eight held bachelor's degrees and eight were non-graduates. Among the UK authors were eight future heads of new UK university nursing departments, six of whom were subsequently created professors. In a simple content analysis of the papers published in volume 1, I have found that 46% were related to nursing or midwifery practice, 26% to nursing education, 18% were about nurses and 10% were research reports. Two papers were particularly interesting for me – one by Rosamond Gabrielson from the USA and the other by Peggy Nuttall from the UK. Miss Gabrielson discussed eruditely and in great detail the development of nursing in the USA over two centuries ‘from untrained servant to skilled practitioner' which, in many ways, reflected the experience of the UK and most other countries where the complete evolution to skilled practitioner is unfortunately still ongoing. Miss Nuttall made a valiant attempt to predict the state of UK nursing in the year 2000 after conceding that, in 1975, 90% of nursing care in the UK was being given by untrained people. Future nursing needs, in her view, required nurses to abandon the stereotype of nursing as an exclusively hospital-based activity and to nurture, positively, the concept of primary health care – a view that is constantly reiterated by desperate healthcare leaders everywhere and one with which I wholeheartedly concur. Perusing the contents of the last issue of JAN in 2015, I was quite pleased and reassured to note that my original aim of promoting the journal as an international scholarly journal and record of nursing knowledge had been well and truly accomplished. I already knew from personal communications that many authors have benefitted professionally by having their papers published in what I am proud to know is one of the most prestigious nursing journals in the world. Many thanks and congratulations to the publishers and to all my editorial collaborators and successors, as well as the authors and readers, for their contributions to the extraordinary success of JAN's first 40 years.
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 | 0.006 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.033 |
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".