The Toronto Addis Ababa Academic Collaboration in Nursing: Living the Concept of Counterparts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. A 2010 Lancet Commission on global higher education for the health professions called for institutional and instructional reforms worldwide in order to keep pace with pressing global health care needs. Among their many recommendations is an awareness of the value of international collaboration to enhance educational quality. In this article, we reflect on our experience of building such a collaboration in nursing. Using the concept of counterparts as articulated by DeSantis (1993; 1995), we describe the highlights as well as the lessons of our work together in developing the research component of the Masters of Science in Nursing (MScN) at Addis Ababa University in Ethiopia. We extend DeSantis' (1995) emphasis on roles in the relationship for understanding what constitutes success in international collaborations. Beyond identifying roles and responsibilities, our story calls attention to the value of cultivating relationships in which interdependence, mutuality, and issues of reciprocity are at the fore.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".