MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974455673 · doi:10.2202/1548-923x.1965

Theory-Based Research of High Fidelity Simulation Use in Nursing Education: A Review of the Literature

2010· review· en· W1974455673 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

VenueInternational Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLFidelityNursing theoryInclusion (mineral)Empirical researchNursing researchNursingPsychologyMedicineComputer scienceMEDLINEEpistemologyPsychological interventionSocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we explore the extent to which theory-based research is informing our understanding of high-fidelity simulation use in nursing education. We reviewed the primary literature archived in the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Applied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Proquest Dissertation and Theses for empirical reports using the key terms high-fidelity simulation and nursing from the years 1989 to 2009. Of the articles that matched our inclusion criteria: 45% made no use of theory; 45% made minimal use; and 10% made adequate use. We argue that theory-based research could bring coherence and external validity to this domain.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.320
GPT teacher head0.601
Teacher spread0.281 · 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