Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rising to the challenges of an aging population, in recent years nurse researchers have made tremendous inroads in advancing the body of knowledge for evidence-based practice in the eld of gerontological research.The papers in this issue re ect the breadth and scope of investigation since the last time CJNR focused on this topic (1998, 30[2]). A cross-section of national and international work, collectively these papers provide an overview of nursing’s multifaceted attention to enhancing the health and life of older people. The topics addressed in this issue clearly emphasize priority areas of gerontological nursing.The majority of the studies reported (Heinrich, Neufeld, & Harrison; Kaasalainen & Crook; Peacock & Forbes;Voyer, McCubbin,Preville, & Boyer;Ward-Grif n, Bol, Hay, & Dashnay) address questions related to gerontological nursing practice and policy. Several papers focus directly on practice, providing quantitative evidence to inform approaches in the important areas of pain assessment (Kaasalainen & Crook) and medication management (Voyer et al.). However, attention to the needs and involvement of caregivers of frail older people is particularly apparent. Qualitative investigations illuminate, in depth, important understandings related to relationships (Ward-Grif n et al.) and interactions (Heinrich et al.) between caregivers and health personnel.A systematic literature review and synthesis (Peacock & Forbes) provides a comprehensive overview of tests of interventions to educate and support caregivers.This cluster of caregiver studies does much to inform nurses confronted with the challenge of ensuring that their caring efforts are appropriately extended to all who informally contribute to both the quality and the quantity of health care available to frail seniors. The subject of several other papers (Forbes et al.; McGilton) is more broadly one of health-services delivery. Forbes et al. identify the determinants of home-care nursing and home-support services, while McGilton makes a signi cant scholarly contribution through the rigorous development and evaluation of scales to measure supportive leadership in long-term-care settings. Given the major policy, planning, and CJNR 2003,Vol. 35 No 4, 3–5
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 | 0.201 | 0.324 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.032 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".