MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2968884342 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v9n12p13

Collaboration is key to success for transition of newly licensed nurses to specialty areas

2019· article· en· W2968884342 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jo-Anne Senneff, Carol LaMonica-Way, Krendi Walls, Harvinder Kaur, Susan Kilbourn, Janice McKay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecialtyNurse practitionersNursingKey (lock)Medical educationTransition (genetics)Career PathwaysPsychologyElement (criminal law)MedicineFamily medicineComputer sciencePolitical scienceHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Newly licensed nurses gain knowledge and skills at the academic level to enter the profession as novice nurses. A nurse residency program is crucial in the successful transition of new nurses to their professional role. In addition, supportive structures are essential for new nurses to acquire the skills, knowledge, and decision-making abilities appropriate for their specific area of practice. At Houston Methodist, an additional element of the nurse residency program includes transition to practice classes that are designed to increase new nurses’ knowledge and understanding of relevant skills. The classes provide practice in specific environments and improve self-confidence with elements identified through Casey-Fink surveys. In addition to the initial classes developed to support these areas, feedback showed the need to incorporate specific classes for specialized environments. As a result, the coordinators of the nurse residency program, experts, and leaders from specialty areas explored and developed specific learning opportunities. The aim of this article is to showcase the strategies used to develop customized approaches to ensure successful transitions to practice for newly licensed nurses.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.004
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0020.021
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.467 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice→Same topicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration→French-language works237,207→