MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232054054 · doi:10.4324/9780203618875-10

Future directions in knowledge development and doctoral education in nursing

2005· book-chapter· en· W4232054054 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ada Sue Hinshaw, Helena Leino‐Kilpi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth Education and Validation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingPsychologyMedical educationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The knowledge base to guide nursing practice and healthcare has expanded dramatically in the past two decades in a number of regions of the world. As a critical mass of doctorally prepared nurses has built major research programmes focused on priority nursing and health problems in their countries, substantiated bodies of knowledge are evolving that enhance the quality of life for multiple populations and improve the healthcare provided to the public. This expansion of knowledge has been facilitated in a number of countries by nurse scientists’ access to growing resources for conducting research. For example, Canadian nurse scholars are now highly successful competitors for federal research monies within most of the government’s funding agencies for health and cancer research. In the Canadian health services research arena, there are targeted federal monies for nursing studies.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealth Education and ValidationFrench-language works237,207