MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Continuing Education for Nurses in Tianjin Municipality, the People's Republic of China

2001· article· en· W128320988 on OpenAlexaff
Nancy Edwards, Zou Hui, X. Song

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContinuing educationChinaNursingMedicineContinuing professional developmentPeople's RepublicRural areaContinuing careFamily medicineMedical educationProfessional developmentPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A descriptive survey examined continuing education experiences of hospital nurses working in Tianjin Municipality, the third largest municipality in The People's Republic of China. METHOD: Fourteen hospitals and two hundred nurses were selected randomly. RESULTS: Over two thirds of the nurses had attended continuing education events in the previous few years. Learning experiences included on-site and off-site workshops; associate degree courses; and teaching strategies of mostly lectures, films and videos. Major barriers discouraging nurses from participating included lack of time, cost, distance, and being denied permission to attend. Nurses working in rural and suburban hospitals reported less access to continuing education opportunities than nurses in urban hospitals. Ninety-six percent of respondents reported they had made changes in their clinical practice as a result of the continuing education activities. CONCLUSION: Strategies to reduce barriers to continuing education and future research examining the impact of continuing nursing education on clinical practice in China need to be developed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.332 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations11
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Continuing Education in NursingSame topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207