MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Using a training needs analysis framework in career development

2011· article· en· W1727128426 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hazel Pennington

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Management · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHuman Resource and Talent Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Salford ManchesterMcGill University
KeywordsNeeds analysisTraining (meteorology)Needs assessmentMedical educationCareer developmentProfessional developmentNursingPsychologySociologyMedicineMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the second of two articles looking at the use of training needs analysis frameworks to streamline the provision of continuing professional development (CPD) in healthcare settings. The first article described the process and academic strategy used to design the framework. Part two describes how one department has used the tool to identify and address staff training and CPD needs, and how this has helped meet individual, departmental and organisational objectives.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0120.008
Science and technology studies0.0060.012
Scholarly communication0.0110.015
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.149
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.125 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing ManagementSame topicHuman Resource and Talent ManagementFrench-language works237,207