MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791178516 · doi:10.1016/j.ijnss.2018.03.001

Canadian nurse practitioner's quest for identity: A philosophical perspective

2018· review· en· W2791178516 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marie-Elaine Delvin, Suzanne Braithwaite, Pilar Camargo‐Plazas

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Nursing Sciences · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentity (music)GovernmentalityContext (archaeology)Health careSociologyPerspective (graphical)NursingPublic relationsEngineering ethicsMedicinePoliticsPolitical scienceLawAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of nurse practitioners in primary healthcare has been validated over the years and is now being considered as a key solution in various primary healthcare settings to the provision of comprehensive care. The context in which the role has been established positions nurse practitioners' practice within medical and nursing paradigms. As the healthcare system evolves, nurse practitioners must define their identity to advocate for roles that reflect their professional values. A historical overview highlighting the context in which the NP role expanded will guide a philosophical discussion regarding role identity. After exposing tensions between the nursing and medicine disciplines, Abbots' theory of profession will be utilized to understand the foundations leading to initial research on nurse practitioner integration within the healthcare system. Feminist philosopher bell hooks' discourse on marginality will serve as a platform to reflect on the nurse practitioner identity within the current social context. Foucault's notions of governmentality, parrhesia and care of the self will then guide reflections regarding ways for nurse practitioners to locate themselves as a profession.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.225
GPT teacher head0.602
Teacher spread0.376 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations23
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Nursing SciencesSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207