[Nursing practice in the context of geographic isolation: implications for training].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A survey on the characteristics of the unique working context of nursing practice in remote areas of French Polynesia and semi-remote areas of northern Quebec demonstrates the importance of a specific training to best prepare the professionals who find themselves in this type of setting. Twenty professionals were interviewed: six nurses practicing in isolated stations in French Polynesia (Tuamotu Archipelago, Marquesas Islands and Austral Islands), six nurses practicing in semi-remote areas within northern Quebec (namely among the Algonquins, the Crees and the Attikameks), four officials of the French Polynesian Health Directorate and four training programme designers from Quebec who were encountered during an expedition to Montreal, Mistissini and Trois-Rivieres. The authors identified ten characteristics which were then regrouped into two categories for both of the practice contexts: first, those inherently linked to professional practice in an isolated context (including the characteristics of nursing practice, the working conditions, the community's health problems, their forms of socio-professional relations, their way of life, and their perception and responses to isolation); and second, those pertaining to the social and natural environment, the economic conditions and the community's cultural specificities. All of the results strongly demonstrate that the specificities of the skills utilised by these nurses are indeed very different than those which they received in their initial preparatory training. If a training programme specific to nursing practice in isolated settings seems essential for these nurses, their individual predisposition to practice in such a complex environment and the acknowledgement of their professional competencies are equally to be considered within the perspective of human resources management.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".