MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414370634 · doi:10.63564/jnep.v15n10p9

Evaluating a nurse-led health policy summit for stakeholder engagement and policy discussion

2025· article· en· W4414370634 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shea Polancich, Tracey Dick, Joy Deupree, Nancy Borkowski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSummitStakeholder engagementStakeholderHealth careHealth policyHealthcare policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Engaging stakeholders in healthcare policy is crucial, and nurses play a vital role in the development and advancement of healthcare policy. Addressing the challenge by the Institute of Medicine to engage nurses as leaders in health policy, we describe our successful use of a nurse-led health policy summit to communicate and inform voters, while specifically engaging participants in a dialogue on telehealth. The 2024 program received favorable evaluation ratings for the live event.

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)0.220
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.216
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2200.216
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0040.013
Research integrity0.0060.009
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 head0.227
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 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 of Nursing Education and Practice→Same topicNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership→French-language works237,207→