Nursing Intellectual Capital Theory: Implications for Research and Practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to rising costs of healthcare, determining how registered nurses and knowledge resources influence the quality of patient care is critical. Studies that have investigated the relationship between nursing knowledge and outcomes have been plagued with conceptual and methodological issues. This has resulted in limited empirical evidence of the impact of nursing knowledge on patient or organizational outcomes. The nursing intellectual capital theory was developed to assist with this area of inquiry. Nursing intellectual capital theory conceptualizes the sources of nursing knowledge available within an organization and delineates its relationship to patient and organizational outcomes. In this article, we review the nursing intellectual capital theory and discuss its implications for research and practice. We explain why the theory shows promise for guiding research on quality work environments and how it may assist with administrative decision-making related to nursing human resource management and continuing professional development.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it