MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148877781 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v3n8p13

Nursing faculty and use of Web 2.0

2013· article· en· W2148877781 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb and Library Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipThe InternetNurse educationCurriculumWorld Wide WebWeb 2.0Principal (computer security)PublicationProcess (computing)Empirical researchMedical educationNursingPsychologyComputer scienceMedicinePedagogyBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to assess how nursing faculty at a southeastern university use Web 2.0 tools in their personal lives and for educational purposes. Current Web 2.0 tools are technology, software, and the Internet. Those tools allow users to share, create, collaborate and/or publish web-based content. The use of Web 2.0 shapes the practice of scholarship in education by creating an environment which enhances the teaching/learning process. Limited empirical data, however, exists describing the use of Web 2.0 among nursing faculty. The results of this study at one southeastern university will be used for faculty and curriculum development in order to meet the needs of current and future nurses. This study was conducted as part of a larger multisite study being coordinated by the principal investigators at another university.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.006
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.291 · 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