Charting a Research Agenda for the Advancement of Nursing Organizations’ Influence on Health Systems and Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nursing organizations across Canada play a significant role in influencing and shaping public policy. 2020, the Year of the Nurse and the Midwife, is an opportune time not only to support nurses in building policy leadership but also to explore opportunities to better understand and strengthen the policy advocacy work of nursing organizations. Given various social, political, and economic forces, the nature of organized nursing across Canada is changing significantly. We draw on recent key national and global events including our systematic inquiry into Canada's 2019 federal election, the Year of the Nurse and Midwife, and the Coronavirus pandemic to examine how Canadian nursing organizations respond in highly complex and evolving contexts. We use our observations to offer a vision and chart a research agenda for the advancement of nursing organizations' influence on health systems and policy. Specifically, we focus on three key areas including examining nursing organizations' policy agendas and spheres of influence; nursing organizations' decision-making around policy advocacy tactics and engagement approaches; and the impact of policy advocacy coalitions and networks on nursing organizations' influence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.122 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.052 | 0.042 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".