MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2562760131 · doi:10.12927/cjnl.2016.24887

Guest Editors’ Reflections on Progress in the Development of Advanced Practice Nursing in Canada

2016· article· en· W2562760131 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ruth Martin‐Misener, Denise Bryant‐Lukosius

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing leadership · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursing practiceEngineering ethicsNursing researchNursingMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This 2016 special edition on advanced practice nursing (APN) roles in Canada builds on earlier role progress reported in the first special edition in 2010. Advancements in role development and innovative models that utilize APN roles are highlighted. The need for further efforts to support health systems integration of APN roles related to funding, research and decision-maker understanding of the roles, and to learn from international experience in APN role implementation are described.

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)0.042
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0080.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.288
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing leadershipSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207