A Critical Analysis of the Benefits and Limitations of an Applied Degree in Undergraduate Nursing Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to present a critical analysis of the applied degree in nursing as an alternative to collaborative models of undergraduate education delivery by different post-secondary institutions. The notion of having multiple levels of entry into nursing (Northrup et al. 2004) and the authority of colleges to award degrees in nursing (Skolnik 1994) have important practical implications for the profession. Since there is a paucity of Canadian literature about applied degrees in nursing, this paper will make an important contribution to the field of nursing education. Due to the collaborative partnerships that have emerged in many jurisdictions in order to meet the baccalaureate degree as the entry-to-practice requirement, an analysis of the Applied Degree in Nursing is relevant and timely. The paper provides a brief history of the baccalaureate degree as the entry-to-practice requirement for nursing, along with an overview of the rationale for the baccalaureate degree from regulatory, research, academic and practice perspectives. Through an analysis of the benefits, limitations and implications of the applied degree, we conclude that this new applied baccalaureate challenges nursing's status as an academic discipline.
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 | 0.079 | 0.201 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".