MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2417861046

For work and for school: internal migration of Canada's rural nurses.

2005· article· en· W2417861046 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. Roger Pitblado, Jennifer Medves, Norma J. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisdictionInternal migrationWork (physics)Rural areaHuman resourcesBusinessGeographySurvey data collectionNursingMedicinePolitical scienceEnvironmental healthPopulation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using data from the Registered Nurses Database and a recently conducted national survey, this study examined the internal migration patterns of Canadian-educated rural RNs. Inter-provincial migration rates, ranging from 11% to 27% depending on the database used, mask much wider variations in sub-provincial movement rates, which are particularly relevant when considering the provision of nursing services in rural and remote communities. Rural RNs are more likely to migrate if they are female, older, working in nursing stations, and living in remote communities. A majority of RNs whose migration is associated with going to school after their initial nursing education do not return to the jurisdiction where they were first registered. Targeted migration studies are needed to fully understand both the detailed patterns and the predictors of such movements in order to better assess recruitment and retention policies and to enhance our overall health human resources planning models.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207