Creating Cohesion Between the Discipline and Practice of Nursing Using Problem Based Learning
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
For at least four decades there has been concern about the discontinuity between the discipline and practice of nursing. The learning traditions in nursing, including the traditional organization of professional educational curricula with an emphasis on general education, could be contributing to this discontinuity. Problem Based Learning (PBL) has been identified as one way to facilitate greater cohesion between the discipline and practice of nursing. Nursing learners exposed to PBL are challenged to achieve professionally desired liberal learning outcomes and acquire knowledge and skill in the discipline of nursing by encountering key professional practice situations as the stimulus and focus of their classroom learning activity. By combining reflection on existing knowledge essential to understanding the situation with research for new knowledge, PBL reflects the process of knowledge generation. Through PBL learners can achieve a deeper understanding of nursing as a discipline, the relationship of nursing to other disciplines and cohesion between the discipline and practice of nursing.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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