MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326649644 · doi:10.1177/0840470416633237

Building nursing role clarity on a foundation of knowledge and knowledge application

2016· review· en· W2326649644 on OpenAlexaff
Dianne Martin, Annette Weeres

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsRegistered Nurses' Association of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCLARITYFoundation (evidence)AmbiguityHealth careNursingLegislationProcess (computing)Quality (philosophy)Knowledge managementPsychologyMedicineComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although a number of factors such as legislation, regulatory frameworks, healthcare system structures and supports impact the optimization of nursing roles, a new look at the nursing process can provide a strong foundation. This article discusses the ambiguity related to the expansion of the licensed practical nurse role over the past 67 years and provides evidence that nurses and healthcare executives, including nurse leaders, still have difficulty in clearly articulating the overlap in categories of nurse, despite the frameworks and tools available to support decision-making. To provide safe, high-quality care using effective and efficient models of care, every category of nurse is essential and role clarity must begin with understanding how to focus on knowledge and knowledge application to make effective decisions in daily practice.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.015
Scholarly communication0.0100.013
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.394 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207