MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1497710814 · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v12i1.896

The development of an online instrument for prior learning assessment and recognition of internationally educated nurses: A pilot study

2011· article· en· W1497710814 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Elaine E. Santa Mina, Carol Eifert, Martha Ireland, Carol Fine, Gail Wilson, Vaska Micevski, Ruth Wojtiuk, Martha Valderrama

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVignetteSample (material)Medical educationNarrativeBenchmark (surveying)Online learningPsychologyNursingComputer scienceMedicineMultimediaSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A fully online prior learning assessment and recognition (PLAR) tool for internationally educated nurses (IENs) was developed and tested by an inter-professional team at Ryerson University. The tool consisted of two stages: a self-assessment component followed by a multiple-choice examination and narrative (vignette) evaluation. The purposes of the study were to describe the demographic profile of the IEN registered nurse (RN), to develop the benchmark responses that demonstrate competency at the entry-to-practice level of the typical IEN RN, and to describe the experience of completing an online PLAR tool. A mixed-method approach was used. Findings demonstrated that IEN RNs who immigrate to Ontario, Canada, are of various ages and come from a wide spectrum of countries. The PLAR process holds promise for an objective assessment of IEN’s eligibility to write the Canadian Registered Nurses Examination (CRNE) and to meet a global need. Further testing of the tool across a broader sample is required.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.392
GPT teacher head0.563
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed LearningSame topicHigher Education Learning PracticesFrench-language works237,207