Paradox of a Graduate Human Science Curriculum Experienced Online: A Faculty Perspective
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Program evaluation contributes to evidence-based nursing education. Exploring graduate faculty experience with developing and teaching an online master's of science in nursing program contributes to building a science of nursing education. METHODS: A multimodal methodology for conducting a program evaluation is participatory and demonstrates both formative (improve the quality of the program) and summative (determine the worth of the program) components. Faculty participated through questionnaires, journals, and focus groups. RESULTS: In the context of a philosophy that values understanding lived experience as foundational for nursing, faculty are teaching in an environment that is disembodied, technology based, and at a distance. Faculty relationships with students reveal emerging curricular issues. CONCLUSIONS: Research into the intersection of pedagogy and technology reveals similarities with contemporary literature and many lived paradoxes to be accounted for in evaluation of graduate nursing education.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it