Evaluating a Web-based Graduate Level Nursing Ethics Course: Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down?
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: This article discusses the course design, experiential findings, and evaluation of a Web-based course for graduate nurses examining professional health care practice and ethical issues. METHOD: Using course input and evaluative data, the article addresses student and teacher perceptions of use of a Web-based delivery mode for graduate level courses and the appropriateness of this ethics course for graduate level students. RESULTS: Evaluative data supported existing knowledge concerning pros and cons of Web-based education. New insights concerning the Web's ability to foster critical thinking skills and supports for continuing ethics education for nurses are reported. All students assessed this ethics course as being of considerable value to their professional practice. CONCLUSION: Students evaluated the pros of Web use for the course as far outweighing the cons. The students' substantial interest in and critical thinking about appropriate knowledge bases to underpin effective ethical decision-making strongly supports the need for continuing ethics education for practicing nurses.
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 | 0.040 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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