MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385843443 · doi:10.15273/hpj.v3i2.11600

Organizational and Institutional Initiatives for the Recruitment, Retention, and Advancement of Black Nurses in the Canadian Healthcare System: A Rapid Review Protocol

2023· review· en· W4385843443 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Keisha Jefferies, Andrea Carson, Meaghan Sim, Leah Boulos, Tara Sampalli, Gail Tomblin Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthy Populations Journal · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health Authority
FundersQEII FoundationHealth Sciences Centre Foundation
KeywordsWorkforceInclusion (mineral)Health careContext (archaeology)Public relationsGrey literatureRacismPolitical sciencePopulationData extractionNursingMedicinePsychologyMEDLINESocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: In response to protests for racial justice, several organizations and institutions have made public declarations denouncing anti-Black racism. One prominent sector emphasizing their commitment to addressing anti-Black racism is health care—more specifically, nursing. To address anti-Black racism, many Canadian organizations and institutions have announced initiatives to recruit, retain, and support the advancement of Black nurses. Our team is interested in charting these initiatives to inform future policy and program decisions related to the recruitment, retention, and advancement of Black nurses. Objective: The objective of this review is to identify and chart evidence of organizational and institutional initiatives related to the recruitment, retention, and advancement of Black nurses in Canada. Inclusion criteria: This rapid review will include sources focused on Black nurses in Canada. Further, this review is focused on the organizational or institutional initiatives that support or facilitate aspects of recruitment, retention, or advancement of Black nurses in the workforce in Canada. Methods: A comprehensive search, developed in collaboration with a library scientist, will be used to locate peer-reviewed and grey literature from select databases and repositories. Databases will be searched from time of inception, and language will be restricted to English and French sources. Title and abstract screening as well as full-text review will each be completed by two independent reviewers. Sources will be included if they meet the inclusion criteria for the population, concept, and context. Data will be extracted by two reviewers using an extraction tool. Data will be reviewed and consolidated before being presented narratively and visually.Protocol Registration: The protocol has been registered with Open Science Framework (OSF) on March 1st, 2023.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.451
GPT teacher head0.572
Teacher spread0.121 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthy Populations JournalSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207