MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Teaching Child Growth and Development

2008· review· en· W2320479638 on OpenAlexaff
Sheila Epp, Judy E. McAulay

Bibliographic record

VenueNurse Educator · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChild Nutrition and Feeding Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusOkanagan College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMedical educationSelection (genetic algorithm)Pediatric nursingService-learningPedagogyNursingComputer scienceMedicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Teaching growth and development to nursing students can be dry, uninteresting, and labor-intensive. Engaging students in learning this material was the challenge of a short, 4-week pediatric experience. Students use growth and development knowledge to select toys and activities that fit in a shoebox and explain to their classmates the rationale for their selection. The Christmas shoebox activity increases their ability to transfer knowledge to both the examination questions and the clinical setting and provides a charitable service to the community.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.312 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNurse EducatorSame topicChild Nutrition and Feeding IssuesFrench-language works237,207