Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims and scopeNursing Inquiry aims to stimulate examination of nursing's current and emerging practices, conditions and contexts within an expanding international community of ideas.The journal aspires to excite thinking and stimulate action toward a preferred future for health and healthcare by encouraging critical refl ection and lively debate on matters affecting and infl uenced by nursing from a range of disciplinary angles, scientifi c perspectives, analytic approaches, social locations and philosophical positions.Toward this end, the Editor welcomes original research and discussion articles on a wide range of topics.Examples of the kinds of manuscripts that may be considered for publication include the following: * Substantive research that draws upon ideas from the humanities or social science perspectives to investigate and interpret nursing and healthcare practices, technologies and trends.* Substantive research that uses methodological innovation within empirical investigation to shed new light on health phenomena.* International or comparative perspectives on health, health care delivery, human health resources, health promotion or health planning from a global perspective.* Policy analysis that critically examines controversial or timely matters such as evolving health labour workforce, transitions in service delivery systems, or trends in health funding patterns.* Advancement of methodological approaches and frameworks to enrich and extend the capacity of nursing and healthcare inquiry.* Ethical inquiry that illuminates or challenges the assumptions underlying the everyday practices and policies affecting nursing and healthcare.* Philosophical inquiries that stimulate thought, deconstruct ideologies or challenge conformities related to the nature and expression of nursing and healthcare.* Historical research that revisits the assumptions upon which professional narratives have been built.* Critical integrative reviews of the current state of scientifi c and/or non-scientifi c knowledge in relation to conceptualization, practice, delivery or planning of health systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.220 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".