MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404425079 · doi:10.12927/cjnl.2024.27464

Foreword: Fostering Innovation Through Nursing Retention Strategies

2024· article· en· W4404425079 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Leigh Chapman

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing leadership · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingPsychologyNurse educationSociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

, I have had the pleasure of hearing directly from nurses about nurse-led initiatives being implemented across Canada. Nurses are often very keen to discuss innovations occurring on the front lines of care delivery. The development of the Nursing Retention Toolkit was directly informed by nurses from across the country to ensure that diverse perspectives were reflected in reconsidering the way in which we value nursing work (Health Canada 2024). One of the many goals of the Nursing Retention Toolkit is to "spark change in how we think about and value the nursing profession and build on the work others have done to improve nurses' working conditions in Canada" (Health Canada 2024: 8).

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.007
Scholarly communication0.0110.006
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0070.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.013

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 head0.394
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.038 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing leadershipSame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207