MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890930890 · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2018.0435

California Nurse Practitioners Are Positioned To Fill The Primary Care Gap, But They Face Barriers To Practice

2018· article· en· W2890930890 on OpenAlexaff
Joanne Spetz, Ulrike Muench

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Affairs · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkforceNurse practitionersNursingPrimary carePer capitaDiversity (politics)MedicineEconomic shortagePopulationFamily medicineHealth carePolitical scienceEnvironmental healthGovernment (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nurse practitioners are well prepared to help fill care gaps arising from shortages of primary care physicians in California. This article reports findings from a survey of California nurse practitioners that examined their employment and practice barriers. The number of nurse practitioners per capita varies across California counties and is positively correlated with the number of physicians per capita. Hispanic and Filipino nurse practitioners are more likely to live in underserved areas. Nurse practitioners and their education programs are concentrated in the same counties that have high physician-to-population ratios. In these counties, recently graduated nurse practitioners are more likely to report that they plan to relocate to another state in the next five years. Expanding education programs in underserved areas, increasing the diversity of the nurse practitioner workforce, and ensuring that nurse practitioners feel empowered to fully use their skills are necessary to meet both current and future primary care needs.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth AffairsSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207