An Examination of Interprofessional Team Functioning in a BScN Blended Learning Program: Implications for Accessible Distance-Based Nursing Education Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the perceptions and experiences of an interprofessional team responsible for the development and delivery of the Registered Practical Nurse (RPN) to Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BScN) Blended Learning Program at Nipissing University were examined. In this program, RPNs can acquire a BScN through distance-based part-time study, including online courses and clinical practicum. In three years, the program has grown from an initial intake of 60 students to a current enrolment of over 600 students (Fitzgerald, Beattie, Carter, & Caswell, 2014).The success of the program is attributed to three factors: a part-time curriculum that permits students to work as they study; partnerships with hospitals and other clinical facilities to support the nurse-learner’s clinical placements; and the performance of a highfunctioning interprofessional team. This study of teamwork will benefit nursing and adult learning educators as well as e-learning professionals involved in the development and delivery of flexible programs for working nurses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".