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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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