MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133554916 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v7n4p136

Computer Literacy Among Students of Zahedan University of Medical Sciences

2015· article· en· W2133554916 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hassan Robabi, Azizollah Arbabisarjou

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender and Technology in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersZahedan University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsComputer literacyMedical educationThe InternetInformation literacyPopulationLiteracyHealth literacyHealth carePsychologyMedicineMathematics educationComputer sciencePedagogyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The need for medical students to be computer literate is vital. With the rapid integration of information technology (IT) in the health care field, equipping students of medical universities withcomputer competencies to effectively use are needed. The purpose of this study was to assess computer literacy (CL) needs of medical sciences students. METHODS: This is descriptive-analytic. The population of the study comprised all students at Zahedan University of Medical Sciences. 385 students from allschools (Medicine, dentistry, paramedics, health, rehabilitation, nursing and midwifery) were selected through randomized- classified sampling. For data collecting, the Lin Tung- Cheng questionnaire was used which it contained 24 items in six sections.The obtained data analyzed by SPSS 15. RESULTS: The results showed that the 77.1% had personal computer. The total mean of students' computer literacy around six domains was 141.9±49.5 out of 240. The most familiarity with computers was the ability to it in internet (29.0±11.4) and the lowest was familiarity and using ability of hard ware (17.5±10.6). There was a significant relationship between passing the Computer lesson (P=0.001), passing Computer course (P=0.05) and having personal computer (P=0.001) with the mean of computer literacy. DISCUSSION: In sum, the medical sciences students' familiarity with computer literacy was not satisfactory and they had not appropriate familiarity with computer literacy skills. The researchers suggest the officials and in-charges to plan educational program for improving computer literacy skills in medical sciences students.

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 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)0.009
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.384 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicGender and Technology in EducationFrench-language works237,207