MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2606528519

Éditorial—Collaboration spéciale : Préparer le futur : renforcer le leadership des soins infirmiers en oncologie dans le contexte des organisations professionnelles de soins infirmiers en oncologie

2017· article· fr· W2606528519 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tracy Truant, Raymond J. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chaque infirmière est un leader. Plutôt que d’être seulement confiné dans un rôle ou un titre de leadership traditionnel, le leadership infirmier se réalise dans les domaines de la réflexion critique, de l’intervention et de la représentation et se manifeste dans tous les rôles, les milieux et les domaines de la pratique des soins infirmiers. Lorsqu’un leadership infirmier de haute qualité est adopté, des résultats positifs sont démontrés tant pour les patients que les prestataires de soins et le système (Cummings et al., 2010; National Expert Commission, 2012; Wong, Cummings et Ducharme, 2013). Le leadership commence dès les études universitaires et se poursuit pendant toute la carrière d’infirmière. Dans ce contexte, le leadership infirmier consiste à regarder au-delà des soins infirmiers pour les considérer non pas que comme un ensemble d’actes de soins scientifiques qui peuvent changer la vie d’une personne, mais aussi comme un engagement de toute une vie envers une action politique pour faire évoluer le système. Pour y arriver, l’infirmière doit élargir son champ de vision, et plutôt que de se concentrer uniquement sur l’individu soigné ou le contexte local, avoir une vue d’ensemble de la population et du contexte global (Association des infirmières et infirmiers du Canada, 2009; Institute of Medicine, 2010; International Council of Nurses, 2016; Commission nationale d’experts, 2012).

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0210.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.017

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 head0.532
GPT teacher head0.630
Teacher spread0.098 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicHealth, Medicine and Society→French-language works237,207→