MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910238048 · doi:10.12927/cjnl.2018.25679

Commentary: Regulation and the Nursing Profession: A Personal Reflection

2018· article· en· W2910238048 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Barbara Mildon

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing leadership · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)NursingReflection (computer programming)PsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Against the backdrop of Ontario's "Inquiry into the Safety and Security of Residents in the Long-Term Care Homes System," this commentary offers personal reflections about nursing regulation and the profession. The evolution of the three pillars of nursing is briefly described, and emerging changes in regulatory structures and professional associations are identified. The nature of the relationship between the regulator and the registrant is commented on, and the lived experiences of regulation from the perspective of an employer and a chief nursing executive are discussed. In the context of the examples shared in the commentary and the proceedings of the Inquiry, the author calls upon each pillar of the profession to work together more effectively to protect the public and optimize the contributions of our profession as a whole.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.182 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing leadershipSame topicElder Abuse and NeglectFrench-language works237,207