The Impact of a PDA-Assisted Documentation Tutorial on Student Nurses' Attitudes
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
The purpose of this pretest-posttest study was to determine the effect of a PDA-assisted documentation tutorial on fourth-year student nurses' (n=56) attitudes toward computerized documentation, anticipation to exercise of professional judgment when documenting, and satisfaction with computer technology for documentation. Paired t test showed significant increases in anticipation to use professional nursing judgment and satisfaction with the PDA for documentation. Satisfaction with the PDA for documentation was positively and significantly related to attitudes toward computerized documentation (r=.46, P<.01), and satisfaction with a PDA learning tutorial (r=.46, P<.01). Attitudes toward computerized documentation, length of nursing experience, and satisfaction with the PDA learning tutorial predicted satisfaction with the PDA for documentation. Seventy percent of 213 comments about the value of the PDA were favorable. These findings indicate that the PDA may be a valuable documentation tool for teaching professional nursing judgment and documentation skills to undergraduate nursing students.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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