Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article details the example of remediating an at-risk nursing student who failed two clinical rotations at a large university nursing program. It is a case of working with a minority student using six simulations and two clinical days in the hospital. The author describes the process of how the simulations and clinical experiences were used to assist the student in increasing her confidence and clinical abilities. In addition to the example of the student, an extensive literature review was done prior to working with the student. This aided the author not only in determining methods for assisting the student, but also in understanding the student’s culture and ethnicity. The authors of the nursing journal articles discuss the variety of at risk students categories and how faculty and advisors can help these students to be successful. Nursing faculty should find this article helpful in their work with at risk students because the remediation plan outlined could be adapted to help many different students with clinical difficulties.
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 | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
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".