MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951931904 · doi:10.12927/cjnl.2019.25850

Getting Comfortable with "It Depends": Embracing the Impermanence of Scope of Practice

2019· article· en· W2951931904 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sara Lankshear, Dianne Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing leadership · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsRegistered Nurses' Association of OntarioGeorgian College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)AmbiguityImpermanenceConfusionLegislationScope of practiceCompassionNursingPsychologyPublic relationsEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceMedicineLawHealth careBuddhismEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scope of practice of nursing roles is continually evolving to meet the ever-changing needs of patient populations and the healthcare system and to reflect changes in legislation, regulation and education requirements. As such, leaders must embrace the impermanence of scope of practice rather than constructing mental models, policies and practices as if the foundation will never change. Impermanence is the only constant, as the complexities within healthcare require that nurses be knowledgeable and flexible to fully leverage our individual and collective contributions to not only our patients but also our 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing leadershipSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207