Bibliographic record
Abstract
Getting Back to the Basics …While Harmer's (1930) text was long ago supplanted by new texts about nursing practice fundamentals (e.g., Berman et al. 2015;Potter et al. 2014), the premise of her introductory comments remains relevant.Reading the authors' contributions to this issue led me to reflect on the basics, the core principles of good nursing care, taught to all of us during our formative years in nursing school.It also gave me pause to consider what has transpired in nursing and healthcare over the course of the last century that has essentially led to a devaluing and under-estimation of the impact of the basics on healing and health.Are the essentials of good hygiene, skin care, nutrition, ambulation, teaching and emotional support as provided by professional nurses no longer priorities in practice?Hopefully, this is not so.Decades of scientific and technological advances do not negate the overall import of the fundamentals of care.In this issue, our authors irrefutably underscore this view.In the face of all our tools and knowledge let us be proud and not shy away from the fundamentals as the core of nursing practice."… the nursing profession has its own ideals and standards, its own body of knowledge, its own skills, its own special function and contribution, as distinct from medicine, in the maintenance of health, and the prevention and cure of disease.This distinct contribution of nursing, although it applies the principles and methods of psychology, hygiene and the biological, social, and physical sciences, all too frequently fails to receive due recognition …" (Harmer 1930: p.v).Promote your event with a listing in Canada's Premiere Resource of Healthcare Events.Reach 50,000+ unique visitors every month.
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 | 0.009 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.030 |
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".