MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165423071 · doi:10.12927/cjnl.2008.20289

A Critical Analysis of the Benefits and Limitations of an Applied Degree in Undergraduate Nursing Education

2008· article· en· W2165423071 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Leigh Chapman, Dale Kirby

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing leadership · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaccalaureate DegreeNurse educationNursingDegree (music)Nursing practiceMedical educationMedicinePsychologyHigher educationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.465
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.006 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing leadershipSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207