MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408306599 · doi:10.1097/nnd.0000000000001132

Nursing Professional Development Practitioners Engage in Formal Rounding to Support New Graduate Nurses’ Transition to Practice

2025· article· en· W4408306599 on OpenAlexaff
S. Storto, Brenda Deane, Dena Gawaluch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for Nurses in Professional Development · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsBC Research (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOnboardingNursingPsychological interventionRoundingMedicineProfessional developmentPsychologyMedical educationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most organizations have interventions to address new graduate nurse (NGN) turnover, but one nursing professional development department created, implemented, and sustained a rounding program on NGNs during their onboarding process to provide additional support for this vulnerable population. The project was piloted in seven hospitals, with expansion to 25. Interventions included celebrating wins, setting goals, and assisting with orientation requirements. NGN retention increased an average of 3% for this period.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.383 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for Nurses in Professional DevelopmentSame topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207