MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Thinking Creatively: From Nursing Education to Practice

2002· article· en· W171308024 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityConceptualizationTheme (computing)Balance (ability)PsychologyProcess (computing)Nursing processCritical thinkingPedagogyProduct (mathematics)Nursing practiceNurse educationMedical educationNursingSociologyMedicineSocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Creative thinking is a critical link in the teaching-learning process, one that enhances problem solving in nursing practice. This article describes a conceptualization of creativity based on focus groups with 12 post-RN students and two nurse educators. Inherent within the major theme, striving for balance, were three subthemes-enhancing self-esteem, working within structure, and making time for reflection (i.e., process). When participants achieved balance, both personally and professionally, they experienced increased creative energy that resulted in creative expression, subsequently displayed in educational endeavors and clinical practice (i.e., product). Strategies for fostering creativity and criteria for evaluating creativity are offered, and implications for nurse educators, managers, and practitioners are examined.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.386 · 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