Administering Student-Related Concerns in Nursing Distance Education Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes the results of a naturalistic inquiry undertaken to identify administrative issues concerning student services in five nursing degree programs offered by distance education in Canadian dual-mode universities. The findings present a series of dilemmas for administrators to do with student participation, available services, and extent of interaction. These dilemmas include possible heavy enrollment and the “bottleneck” in providing clinical placement, students’ need for independence and instructors’ desire for group discussion, administrative flexibility and institutional rules, complex student needs and inadequate counseling services and the need to ensure that there is appropriate program redevelopment as the student clientele for these programs changes and there is a more seamless transition between campus and distance education courses. L’article présente les résultats d’une enquête naturaliste qui visait à identifier les enjeux administratifs liés aux services aux étudiants de cinq programmes menant à un diplôme en soins infirmiers, offerts à distance par des universités canadiennes bimodales. Les résultats placent les administrateurs face à des dilemmes en matière de participation étudiante, de services offerts et des niveaux d’interaction possibles. Au nombre de ces dilemmes, on compte l’éventualité d’un volume élevé d’inscriptions et l’engorgement subséquent des stages en clinique; le désir d’indépendance des étudiants et le désir des professeurs de discuter avec les étudiants; la souplesse administrative et les règlements des établissements; la complexité des besoins étudiants et l’insuffisance des services d’orientation; enfin, le besoin d’assurer à la fois un remaniement des programmes qui tienne compte de l’évolution de leur clientèle et une jonction plus souple entre les cours dispensés sur campus et ceux qui le sont à distance.
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 | 0.024 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".