Bibliographic record
Abstract
This editorial marks a significant moment for Nursing Inquiry. After over 10 years as editor-in-chief, I am delighted to be handing over to Sally Thorne, professor at University of British Columbia. The editorship of Nursing Inquiry has provided me with a wonderful opportunity for academic growth that I owe entirely to Judith Parker, who skillfully managed to slot me into the driver’s seat before I realized what was happening. Over the years, I have tried to stay true to the brilliant vision of Parker and her co-conspirators and to ensure Nursing Inquiry functions as a forum for new ways of thinking about practice. The importance of such a forum cannot be underestimated. Impact factors and H-index rankings can make us output orientated and risk averse. Moreover, it is increasingly difficult to publish scholarship that is not ‘data-driven’ in the health sciences and therefore Nursing Inquiry plays a critical role in fostering debate, engaging with divergent scholars and supporting the theoretical work that is the foundation of good empirical work. Nursing Inquiry has always maintained the highest production standards, patiently insisted on rigorous reviews from world experts, and worked hard to remain receptive to new ideas and new approaches to practice from scholars around the world. The opportunities to reach this global scholarly community have been enormously enhanced by the expanded e-platforms provided by Wiley-Blackwell and their formidable marketing and distribution network. It has been very exciting as editor to discover the real connection nurses have with Nursing Inquiry in places as diverse as Brazil and Singapore. It is a unique scholarly community – eclectic, creative, risk taking and, at times, iconoclastic. One vital element of our constituency has been doctoral students who have looked to Nursing Inquiry during their struggles with their theory chapters. A great many of our papers eventually come from these very students, as they complete their studies and are then in a position to add to the scholarship that guided them through their doctoral work. The community that supports Nursing Inquiry, whose voice it represents, includes philosophers, anthropologists, historians, political scientists, social theorists, psychoanalysts, ethicists and sociologists. It is this rich interface between nurses, health professionals, the social sciences and the humanities that has made this journal unique. Its conceptualization of nursing scholarship has been broad – defined by the topic of interest rather than the disciplinary field. Although controversial in some quarters, in my view this path has proved its worth as Nursing Inquiry has continued to publish fresh and interesting work, work that makes us think again, over the years. While the editor-in-chief is the public face of the journal, Nursing Inquiry has always been a team effort. The two deputy editors, Michael Traynor in the UK and Judith Parker in Australia, have played a critical role in maintaining the quality and consistency of the journal over the years and I need to thank them for their willingness to pick up whatever I have asked of them. Their advice has always been unerring. Carla Taines, the editorial manager, has been with Nursing Inquiry since its early days and has been a joy to work with. Carla is a remarkable editor, and as the many hundreds of authors who have worked with her over the years will attest, her professionalism and wisdom have provided the backbone to the journal and certainly kept me on track. Many will have interacted with the editorial assistant in their dealings with the journal. I have had the pleasure of working for many years with Debbie Fleming (in Melbourne) and Brigid Nelson (in Toronto). Both were wonderful to work with, very responsive to authors and reviewers (and on occasion caught in the middle) and always highly professional. Colleagues at Blackwell, now Wiley-Blackwell, too, have been enormously committed to the journal’s success and very supportive of the editorial team. Nursing Inquiry is now in great hands. Sally Thorne will be a terrific editor-in-chief and will take the journal and its very special community of scholars exactly where it needs to be. I know it will continue to be a beacon for doctoral students and scholars around the world as they grapple with the ever deepening complexities of practice. My editorship has been a wonderful and privileged learning experience. I thank everyone for their support and look forward to seeing the journal go from strength to strength under Sally’s leadership.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".