Bibliographic record
Abstract
A global registered nursing (RN) shortage has caused an increase in migration and international recruitment of nurses. There is growing interest among some countries of having common standards and competencies for entry-level registered nurses to guide future registered nurse agreements between countries or multi-country licensure programs. Nursing education in one country may not be accepted as equivalent for a nurse to become licensed in another country.An exploratory study was conducted to gain a better understanding of how nurses are educated in various countries. Nurse researchers sent a nursing education questionnaire to nurse educators in eleven countries inviting them to participate in the study. Nurse educators from six countries agreed to participate in the study. They provided information about their country’s nursing history, types of nursing programs, use of national nursing licensing examination, and political influences on nursing education.The People’s Republic of China, Japan and Turkey nurse educators’ responses were the first to be analyzed and the results were published in the July/August 2005 issue of Contemporary Nurse (volume 19/1–2). This second article (in Contemporary Nurse volume 20/2) provides information about and a comparison of nursing programs in Canada, Finland and the United States.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.052 |
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".