Exploring the perceptions of male nursing students enrolled in an accelerated baccalaureate degree nursing program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To gain understanding about the factors that drew men to an accelerated baccalaureate degree nursing program, the challenges they faced, and the support they need to complete the program. Methods: This qualitative descriptive study explored the perceptions of male nursing students enrolled in an accelerated baccalaureate degree nursing program. The study design used semi-structured questions in a focus group format comprised of a sample of male nursing students currently enrolled in the ABSN program of a southeastern academic health sciences center. Relatively few studies have examined male nursing students, and those enrolled in a non-traditional program typically have unique circumstances. The significance of this study to nursing science is that the results will add to the growing body of knowledge regarding the recruitment and retention of males into nursing schools. Results: Following data analysis, four themes emerged from the participant responses related to sacrifice, knowledge gain, organization for survival, and opportunities for men in nursing. Conclusions: The results of this study highlight the attraction of accelerated BSN programs since many men opt for nursing as a second career choice. Results of this study may be used to improve recruitment and retention of male nursing students.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".