Nursing MSc Theses: A Study of an Iranian College of Nursing and Midwifery in Two Decades (1990-2010)
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
AIM: A thesis is an important part of nursing graduate students' education, which is also their first systematic and scientific attempt to learn the ABCs of research. Articles derived from theses are important for the dissemination of science and the improvement of nursing as a field. Therefore, it is the goal of the present research is to analyze the different aspects of nursing MSc theses and the number of published articles derived from them. METHODS: This was a descriptive research carried out on 145 nursing MSc theses defended in Razi Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery in Kerman between 1990 and 2010. All of the extracted data were put into an Excel file (2007 version) followed by a data analysis. RESULTS: The results of this study were then presented via the use of descriptive statistics and figures. The research findings showed that most of the theses used a descriptive or analytical-descriptive method, and 42% of them had patients as their participants. They were usually delivered on the subject of health care, and only 58 articles were extracted from the whole 145 theses. CONCLUSION: The process of writing nursing MSc theses and thesis research articles is improving gradually. However, there is a growing need for empirical and semi-empirical research to bridge the gap between theory and practice, which is also a major concern among 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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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