23. An Internal Audit of a Virtual Learning Space to Facilitate Clinical Decision-Making in Nursing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In any nursing program, it is a challenge to foster an awareness of, and engagement with, the complexity and reality of nursing practice. During their studies, nursing students have to learn the relevant underpinning theoretical knowledge for practice as well as develop their understanding of the role and responsibilities of the registered nurse in clinical settings. At a regional Australian university the Bachelor of Nursing is offered externally with the student cohort predominantly off-campus. There are significant challenges in providing opportunities to enhance learning (Henderson, Twentyman, Heel, & Lloyd, 2006) and to foster early professional engagement with the nursing community of practice (Andrew, McGuiness, Reid, & Corcoran, 2009; Elliot, Efron, Wright, & Martinelli, 2003; Morales-Mann & Kaitell, 2001) in a context for learning nursing knowledge and inter-professional collaborative practice. This paper presents the results of a series of internal audits of students’ feedback of the Charles Darwin Hospital (CDU) vHospital™ undertaken from 2008 to 2010, following integration into theory and clinical nursing subjects in the Bachelor of Nursing program. The feedback from students demonstrates the value students place on teaching and learning activities that provide realistic situated learning opportunities (Hercelinskyj & McEwan, 2011).
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".