MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973869400 · doi:10.5480/1536-5026-33.2.106

Teaching Critical Management Skills to Senior Nursing Students:<i>Videotaped or Interactive Hands-On Instruction?</i>

2012· article· en· W1973869400 on OpenAlex
Pamela Baxter, Noori Akhtar‐Danesh, Janet Landeen, Geoff Norman

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

VenueNursing Education Perspectives · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSignificant differenceFidelityNursingEmergency nursingMedical educationPsychologyMedicineComputer scienceEmergency department

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined and compared the effectiveness of videotape training versus hands-on instruction in preparing senior nursing students to respond to emergency clinical situations. Fourth year nursing students (n=27) were randomly assigned to one of three groups; one group received videotaped instruction, one group engaged in a hands-on experience, and one group, a control, received no instruction. Students were evaluated using a three-station objective structured clinical examination that involved high-fidelity simulations. Differences between the control and the two instructional groups were significant (p = .007); however, there was no significant difference between the two types of instruction. It was concluded that instruction on crisis management with a high-fidelity simulator, using either video or hands-on instruction, can result in a significant improvement in performance.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.447 · 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