MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793309716 · doi:10.1111/nhs.12408

Nurse and midwifery prescribing in Ireland: A scope‐of‐practice development for worldwide consideration

2018· article· en· W2793309716 on OpenAlexaff
Donna M. Wilson, Jill Murphy, Mavis A. Nam, Anne Fahy, Susanna Tella

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing and Health Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrishNursingMedicineScope (computer science)Scope of practiceGovernment (linguistics)Health careNurse educationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For 10 years, select Irish nurses and midwives who pass a rigorous 6 month theory and practical program can prescribe medications and other medicinal products. Given the need for timely, accessible, and affordable health-care services in all countries, this nursing/midwifery education and practice development is worthy of examination. Irish nurse/midwife prescribing occurred following long-term deliberative nursing profession advocacy, nursing education planning, nursing administration and practice planning, interdisciplinary health-care team support and complementary efforts, and government action. A review of documents, research, and other articles was undertaken to examine this development process and report evaluative information for consideration by other countries seeking to improve their health-care systems. Nurse/midwife prescribing was accomplished successfully in Ireland, with the steps taken there to initiate and establish nurse/midwife prescribing of value internationally.

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)0.117
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1170.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.138
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing and Health SciencesSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207