MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905188160 · doi:10.1111/nuf.12314

Correctional nursing and transformational leadership

2018· review· en· W2905188160 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Forum · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformational leadershipSubspecialtyNursingContext (archaeology)Nursing practiceHealth careNursing literaturePsychologyMedicineAlternative medicinePolitical scienceFamily medicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transformational leadership (TL) is a highly discussed approach in the literature for many professions. Likewise, the TL approach continues to be explored in a myriad of nursing contexts to demonstrate its advantages for practice and client health. The tension between custody and care is particular to correctional nursing practice, such as the correctional priorities of safety and security that often override caring-focused nursing practice. Presented herein, is information relating to correctional nursing leadership as found in the minimal, available literature; and hypothetical examples of how correctional nursing leaders can use TL are provided. Measuring the influence of TL on practice and offender health can assist in determining if this approach is an appropriate "fit" for the correctional nursing context. The dearth of literature regarding correctional nursing leadership must be addressed to advance this subspecialty of nursing and promote offender health. The intent is not to argue that TL is the only applicable leadership approach for this subspecialty of nursing. Rather, introductory insight is offered regarding the suitability of TL in correctional nursing practice.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.257 · 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