MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411293798 · doi:10.12927/cjnl.2025.27614

Data, Advocacy and Policy: A Powerful Trio for Change

2025· article· en· W4411293798 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ruth Martin‐Misener

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing leadership · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingPolitical sciencePsychologyPoliticsPublic relationsSociologyMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This issue brings us face to face with the leadership challenges we must address to navigate a future that - in many ways - is already here. It begins with a special focus on nursing data standards with a paper focused on one of nursing's longstanding issues - our invisibility in data systems. For that data to matter and be usable for the purposes of organizing, informing and evaluating the nursing workforce and its processes and outcomes, it must be standardized.

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)0.247
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.253
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.247
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2470.253
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0280.092
Scholarly communication0.0680.094
Open science0.0110.045
Research integrity0.0790.106
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.004

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 head0.768
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.247 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing leadershipSame topicData Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207