The Scholarship of Application: Recognizing and Promoting Nurses’ Contribution to Knowledge Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The generation of knowledge is fundamental to the practice of nursing and occurs through various forms of scholarship. Boyer recognized this and described knowledge production through research, integration, teaching, and application. The focus of this article is on the scholarship of application and its role in the development of nursing knowledge. Examples of achievement in the scholarship of application are provided with outcomes of work between community and education partners and innovative clinical practice changes. The scholarship of application is of particular importance to nursing as it bridges research, practice, and education, and documents and disseminates nursing knowledge to enable peer critique. Approaches for developing a climate of scholarship are discussed, including differentiating scholarly practice from clinical scholarship and how the scholarship of application is situated in practice arenas. The role of clinical scholars and clinical leaders and the continuing development of future scholars are proposed.
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 | 0.046 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.032 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".