Developing a Culture of Support to Advance and Accelerate Nursing Innovation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nurses everywhere are called to seek new and better ways of providing care in the complex and dynamic environments where they practise. The core of innovation is the creation of new ideas and use of existing ideas in new ways or in new settings. Today, innovation and fresh thinking are more important than ever as the world is changing rapidly and complexity is the norm. Nurse leaders are called to action to create the insights, cultures, structures and methodologies needed to promote the development and uptake of innovative ideas in nursing practice and interdisciplinary team work. This paper highlights three successful examples of nursing leadership in the development of a culture of innovation at the national (SE Health), provincial (Registered Nurses Foundation of Ontario's Nurse Innovator Awards) and local (Sinai Health) levels. The goal of these initiatives is to cultivate innovation as a way of being, thinking and doing, ensuring that it is inherent in nursing culture and visible in nursing practice, education and research that enhances patients' and care partners' experiences.
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 | 0.038 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".