Educational silos in nursing education: a critical review of practical nurse education in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes to practical nurse education (with expanded scopes of practice) align with the increasing need for nurses and assistive personnel in global acute care contexts. A case in point is this critical exploration of Canadian practical nursing literature, undertaken to reveal predominating discourses and relationships to nursing disciplinary knowledge. The objectives of this poststructural critical review were to identify dominant discourses in practical nurse education literature and to analyze these discourses to uncover underlying beliefs, constructed truths, assumptions, ambiguities and sources of knowledge within the discursive landscape. Predominant themes in the discourses surrounding practical nurse education included conversations about the nurse shortage, expanded roles, collaboration, evidence-based practice, role confusion, cost/efficiency, the history of practical nurse education and employer interests. The complex relationships between practical nursing and the disciplinary landscape of nursing are revealed in the analysis of discourses related to the purpose(s) of practical nurse education, curricula/educational programming, relationships between RN and PN education and the role of nursing knowledge. Power dynamics related to employer needs and interests, as well as educational silos and the nature of women's work, are also revealed within the intersection of various discourses.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.036 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".