MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392062724 · doi:10.1177/08404704241232668

Innovative nursing employment initiatives to strengthen and sustain the health workforce in Canada

2024· article· en· W4392062724 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrea Baumann, Vicki Smith, Mary Crea‐Arsenio

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkforceWorkforce planningBusinessPandemicNursingEconomic shortageHuman resourcesHealth human resourcesWorkforce developmentCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Economic growthPublic relationsHealth carePolitical scienceMedicineEconomicsGovernment (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health systems worldwide are at a critical juncture due to an increasing demand for health services and a diminishing pool of health human resources. While COVID-19 exacerbated nursing deficits, the need to strengthen and sustain the health workforce in Canada was evident decades prior and supported by numerous studies that warned of significant shortages. Post pandemic, building health system capacity has become paramount. This article examines innovative nursing employment initiatives in Canada. It provides a snapshot of federal, provincial and territorial approaches, with a particular focus on Internationally Educated Nurses (IENs) due to burgeoning interest in and competition for their skills and services. However, recognizing that health human resource planning is a persistent challenge, further initiatives are suggested. These include complementary policy development to improve retention and policy frameworks that support proactive long-term strategies to address the cyclical shortage of nurses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.917

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0190.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.373 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207