Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of critical thinking has been featured in nursing literature for the past 20 years. It has been described but not defined by both the American Association of Colleges of Nursing and the National League for Nursing, although their corresponding accreditation bodies require that critical thinking be included in nursing curricula. In addition, there is no reliable or valid measurement tool for critical thinking ability in nursing. As a result, there is a lack of research support for the assumptions that critical thinking can be learned and that critical thinking ability improves clinical competence. Brookfield suggested that commitments should be made only after a period of critically reflective analysis, during which the congruence between perceptions and reality are examined. In an evidence-based practice profession, we, as nurse educators, need to ask ourselves how we can defend our assumptions that critical thinking can be learned and that critical thinking improves the quality of nursing practice, especially when there is virtually no consensus on a definition.
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 | 0.052 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".