Scholarship Revisited: A Collaborative Nursing Education Program's Journey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Collaborative Nursing Program in British Columbia is a nursing education program composed of 10 partners, including five community colleges, four university colleges, and one university. The Board of Accreditation of the Canadian Association of University Schools of Nursing granted a 7-year accreditation to the Collaborative Nursing Program partners in November 2000. During the past several years, the partners have begun to view their collaborative curriculum development, implementation, and evaluation through the lens of scholarship. Using Boyer's model of scholarship, they have begun to evaluate their work of discovery, integration, application, and teaching against criteria in Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professorate. This article describes the journey the collaborative partners undertook in exploring the meaning of scholarship across the partnership and within each nursing school.
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 | 0.042 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.054 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.043 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.063 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.032 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".