MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1878744047 · doi:10.12968/bjon.2015.24.16.830

Posters as assessment strategies: focusing on service users

2015· article· en· W1878744047 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

VenueBritish Journal of Nursing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipService (business)NursingIrishWork (physics)Medical educationValue (mathematics)Service-learningMedicineService delivery frameworkPublic relationsPsychologyPedagogyPolitical scienceBusinessEngineeringComputer scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article debates whether posters as an assessment strategy in health professionals' education programmes can benefit learners, academics, and service users. Evidence suggests that service-user involvement benefits learning by developing students' communication, partnership and advocacy skills. The authors debate the value of posters as an assessment strategy in postgraduate diploma nursing programmes delivered in an Irish School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems. It is argued that assessment strategies should not only examine programme theory and practice but should also benefit the people that will be using the service. Although the assessment strategy used in these programmes aimed to benefit service users, additional work is required for assessment to be truly inclusive of service users.

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)0.002
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 score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.376 · 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