Made in Canada? In Search of a National Research Identity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To even the most casual observer of nursing internationally, the embracing of research by nurses as a guide for practice decisions over the past decade has been nothing short of remarkable.But a common response to the absence of "home-grown" research in many countries has been to borrow thinking and writings from the West, in particular from the United States.That is, up until now.Automatic recourse to American nursing texts and publications is being rapidly replaced by varying degrees of resistance to, and even antagonism towards,American research, theoretical work, and educational trends.Separate or special editions of American textbooks tailored to academic markets in Canada and other countries are now seen widely in nursing and other disciplines.This development raises some intriguing questions if we look beneath the surface, beyond the reflex to read "Canadian" (or at least to not automatically read "American").What, for instance, makes scholarship Canadian?What purpose or purposes does the label "Canadian" serve?How can academic nationalism, if you will, be a positive force in moving the discipline of nursing forward?Pose a question along the lines of "What makes Korean research Korean?" in virtually any country but the United States and a lively debate is likely to ensue.At least two streams of discussion will emerge.One will deal with the geographical origin of a piece of scholarship and the other will address notions of how place influences the origins and expression of ideas, the interpretation of data, and so forth.Is a research project automatically Canadian because its subjects are North Americans who reside above the 49th parallel?Are there topics that are inherently "of " a particular country or region, because of history, geography, and politics?One immediately thinks of the Canadian healthcare system and its enduring values and problems.We could easily add the experiences of the Aboriginal people in Canada and those of nursing students and their professors in CEGEPs (the junior college system in Quebec).These experiences may be similar to those of Aboriginal peoples in Australia or the United States and nursing students and pro-CJNR 2004,Vol.36 N o 4,3-6
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.053 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".