Bibliographic record
Abstract
advanced clinical practice framework, 14 advanced nursing practice characteristics of, 20-22 controversial issues in admitting and discharging patients from hospital, 32-33 making a diagnosis, 32 organisational constraints, 155 prescriptive authority (see non-medical prescribing), 32 regulation (see professional regulation) credentialing (see professional regulation) Development Australia clinical nurse consultants (see consultant practitioners) current issues in, 57-58 remote and rural areas, 59-60 standards framework, 54 Europe The Netherlands, 29-30, 225-227 Republic of Lithuania, 31 Jamaica, 29 Gulf region, 26 North America Canada, 22, 26, 27, 29, 42 United States, 4, 7, 20, 27, 30, 143, 224, 242, 283 Singapore, 30 South America (PAHO), 26-7 Africa, 27-28 United Kingdom England, 13-14 Northern Ireland, 13 Scotland, 12 Wales, 12-13 definition of, 21, 53, 94 drivers for, 23-24 educational preparation (see professional preparation) allied health professionals (AHPs) advanced practice
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.783 | 0.694 |
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".