ADVANCING THE NURSING PROFESSION, RESEARCH AND PERSONAL CAREER GROWTH: NOVICE FACULTY AND COLLABORATIVE WORK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Pre-tenure early career researchers within academic settings play an important role as catalysts for new research and methodological innovations. However, the tenure-track process can be a high-pressure experience for such faculty. Examining organic collaborations amongst new pre-tenured faculty can afford opportunities for internal capacity building. However, literature is lacking in the benefits of developing such partnerships among novice faculty members with other novice faculty members. Research Objectives: This study aimed to examine the research programs of three novice tenure-track nursing faculty members and the connections between such programs for current and future collaborations, advancement of the nursing profession and scholarship, and personal-professional growth. Methodology: Narrative Inquiry with a specific focus on self-study was utilized with participants who identify as tenure-track nursing faculty members and are also the three investigators on this study. Each participant underwent a self-reflection process directed by a question guide informed by the literature and theoretical lens of Creamer (2003), and an aspect of the Narrative Reflective Process. Participants reflections were analyzed against each other and with relevant literature for co-construction to occur, moving participants’ experiences from being an individual activity to one that can have social significance for others with diverse programs of research. Results: The study explored common narrative threads that emerged from the faculty members’ reflections: stakeholder collaboration and involvement; nursing policy, practice, and research leadership. Final Considerations: This study has demonstrated potential areas for future collaborations between novice faculty members leading to benefits for the nursing profession, nursing research and personal career growth.
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 | 0.040 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".