MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404375617 · doi:10.26443/mjgh.v13i1.1358

Neoliberal Globalization of Services Now Includes Nursing

2024· article· en· W4404375617 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Journal of Global Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobalizationNursingPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to rising nursing vacancies, many high-income countries are turning to low-income countries to recruit nurses into their healthcare systems, a process that has exacerbated global health inequities. This review challenges the dominant neoliberal worldview of achieving economic prosperity through a largely unregulated free market at the expense of population health – instead suggesting that high-income country governments should implement alternative local solutions rather than reinforce global health disparities through the exploitation of migrant nurses. In fact, increased nursing vacancies in high-income countries are the result of domestic nurse retention crises, not nurse shortages. The primary drivers of migration of nurses from low-income countries to high-income countries include remuneration, security, career prospects and job satisfaction. The Global South faces a collapse of healthcare systems due to scarcity and maldistribution of nurses, while nurses who relocate face exploitation in their receiving high-income country. The reliance of high-income countries on recruitment of nurses from low-income countries is an unsustainable mechanism for global healthcare.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0070.012
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill Journal of Global HealthSame topicNursing Education, Practice, and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207