MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Capturing a Vision for Nursing

2005· article· en· W2418730281 on OpenAlexaff
Sheryl Reimer‐Kirkham, Catherine Hoe Harwood, Lynn Van Hofwegen

Bibliographic record

VenueNurse Educator · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingQualitative researchPsychologyMedical educationMEDLINEMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An urgent need to secure additional community health placements provided initial motivation to use alternate clinical settings. Subsequent student requests for placement in these settings, rather than the traditional community settings, drew attention to the sites' unique and far-reaching benefits. Presenting the findings of a qualitative study, the authors discuss the perspectives of students, instructors, and RNs regarding their experiences in these alternative clinical settings and provide recommendations for the use of alternative settings in nursing education.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.022
Scholarly communication0.0190.018
Open science0.0020.020
Research integrity0.0040.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.337 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNurse EducatorSame topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207