MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Improvement of nursing students' critical thinking skills through problem‐based learning in the People's Republic of China: A quasi‐experimental study

2008· article· en· W2128750297 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing and Health Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersChina Medical Board
KeywordsCritical thinkingTest (biology)PsychologyChinaSignificant differenceNursingProblem-based learningNurse educationMedical educationMathematics educationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A quasi-experimental, two-group pretest-post-test design was conducted to examine the effect of problem-based learning on the critical thinking skills of 46 Year 2 undergraduate nursing students in the People's Republic of China. The California Critical Thinking Skills Test Form A, Chinese-Taiwanese version was used as both a pretest and as a post-test for a semester-long nursing course. There was no significant difference in critical thinking skills at pretest, whereas, significant differences in critical thinking skills existed between the problem-based learning and lecture groups at post-test. The problem-based learning students had a significantly greater improvement on the overall California Critical Thinking Skills Test, analysis, and induction subscale scores compared with the lecture students. Problem-based learning fostered nursing students' critical thinking skills.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.397 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it