Bibliographic record
Abstract
10• procedural requirements) to this type of research, Max van Manen (1997) and Patricia Benner (1994) offered methodological structures that provide a meaningful guide to the process of this methodology; therefore, my work was both descriptive and interpretive in nature.I searched for NPs who had been working in their role for at least two years and were employed more than 20 hours per week in their NP position so that they had had time to accumulate experiences as an acute-care NP, to begin to make sense out of them, and to embody the experience of being an NP within their practices.Participants were drawn from four adult and paediatric teaching hospitals in three provinces in the central and western regions of Canada that had been employing, for more than two years, NPs who had graduated from universitybased nursing programs designed to educate nurses working in NP roles in hospital environments.Once ethics approval for the study was obtained from each participating hospital's research ethics boards, I accessed the lists of NP names by various means: the professional nursing association, the institution's human resources departments, and/or nursing administrators.I then distributed letters explaining the study via intra-hospital mail, as per each institution's directives.Twenty-six NPs volunteered to each participate in one face-toface, audiotaped, in-depth interview, which was carried out in a quiet setting of the participant's choice, such as the participant's home or a room within the workplace away from the patientcare area.Interviews ranged in length from two to three and a half hours.I generally began each interview with the prompt, "Share with me a day in your life as an NP," and proceeded gradually, at the participant's own pace and own direction, to conversations concerning what drew him or her to the role, his or her education and learning, seminal influences that shaped him or her in the role, key relationships, accounts of what he or
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".