MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3147803421

국가 간 간호사 상호인정협정의 현황과 한국의 정책방향 모색

2020· article· ko· W3147803421 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
박은태, 김진현

Bibliographic record

Venue간호행정학회지 · 2020
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldMedicine
TopicDiverse Approaches in Healthcare and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLicenseNursingEuropean unionPolitical scienceOrder (exchange)MedicineBusinessInternational tradeLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to identify the current issues concerning a mutual recognition agreement (MRA) for nursing professionals, and to suggest policy alternatives in South Korea. Methods: The study was conducted through a literature review. Results: The nursing MRA was signed by the European Union, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Australia-New Zealand, India-Singapore, and the Caribbean Community. The United States and Japan have not concluded a nursing MRA with other countries, but they have lowered the entry barriers for foreign nurses from certain countries. In order to prepare for a nursing MRA with developed countries such as the United States, Canada and Australia, it is necessary to establish international standards for nursing and to build a verification system for the qualifications of foreign nurses. In addition, there is a need to establish an independent professional licensing authority that assumes responsibility for all the tasks regarding a nursing license. Conclusion: The findings of this study can be used as basic data for the preparation of a nursing MRA, and can contribute to the establishment of policies for foreign 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.237
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.136 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue간호행정학회지Same topicDiverse Approaches in Healthcare and Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207