MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2284645255 · doi:10.3928/0022-0124-20050701-06

Exploring Nursing Roles Across North American Borders

2005· article· en· W2284645255 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alice F. Kuehn, Andrea Chircop, Barbara Downe‐Wamboldt, Debbie Sheppard-LeMoine, Donna Murnaghan, Judy Elliott, Kim Critchley, Neil S. MacNaughton, Lourdes Rodríguez Méndez, Lucille Wittstock, Guadalupe Ramírez, Sabrina Arteaga, Silvia Espinoza, Rosemary Herbert, Tess Judge-Ellis, Velia Cárdenas

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Competency in Health Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)MulticulturalismNursingHealthcare deliveryScope of practiceHealth careProcess (computing)Healthcare systemPsychologyMedical educationMedicinePolitical sciencePedagogyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Professional nurses are challenged by the increasing complexity of their own healthcare delivery systems and by the growing interconnectivity of healthcare systems worldwide. There are increasing calls for practice across boundaries; however, the role and scope of nursing practice within individual countries are often unclear, ill-defined, and misunderstood by nurses from other countries. In this collaborative educational project among six schools of nursing located in Canada, México, and the United States, nursing students and faculty are exploring the role of the nurse within each country's healthcare system while striving to develop their multicultural awareness. Participating faculty describe the process, challenges, and keys to success found in creating and living this international project. They share strategies for addressing challenges, which included meeting deadlines, time differences, differing academic schedules, writing joint documents in two languages, designing and presenting a shared course, and creating an exchange process between the six partner schools. They describe the evolution of their working relationships, the language challenges, and the joy of coming together as newfound colleagues and friends.

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)0.006
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0240.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.375 · 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

Citations12
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Continuing Education in NursingSame topicCultural Competency in Health CareFrench-language works237,207