MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Combating the Nursing Shortage: Recruitment and Retention of Nephrology Nurses

2023· article· en· W4360807069 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNephrology Nursing Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsOntario Stroke Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNephrologyMedicineEconomic shortageNursingNursing shortageStaffingInternal medicineIntensive care medicineFamily medicineNurse education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nurses are a critical part of the health care system. Yet the nursing profession continually faces shortages in all specialties. Several causes and issues of concern related to the nursing shortage in nephrology are discussed, including the prevalence of kidney disease and its increasing number of associated comorbidities, which has also heightened the urgent need for nephrology nurses. Data have shown that the lack of nephrology nurses caring for patients with kidney disease impacts patient outcomes and nephrology nurse burnout. Strategies must be implemented to manage these growing needs that affect both patient outcomes and nurse staffing. This article aims to identify methods to combat the nursing shortage, promote recruitment and retention strategies for nephrology nurses, and discuss leadership issues related to the topic.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.339 · 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