MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2346865163 · doi:10.3928/0022-0124-20001101-06

Postdiploma Nursing Education: After the Year 2000

2000· article· en· W2346865163 on OpenAlexaff
Mary‐Lou Ellerton, Janet Curran

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCourseworkNursingDemographicsNurse educationHealth careMedical educationMedicinePreferencePsychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The emergence of new health care needs related to changing demographics, financial restraints on health care, and increased rates of chronic illness has contributed to the need for nurses with a range of highly specialized skills. Yet traditional education programs for nurses have focused on diploma level preparation for bedside staff positions. This study explores the assessments of 714 clinical nurses with diploma level preparation and 56 nurse managers about the need for postdiploma nursing education. The results reveal a preference for clinically focused university education over noncredit coursework or a generic degree program. Nurses and their managers agree on the necessity for opportunities for more preparation in gerontology and palliative care, as well as the need for all practicing nurses to learn many skills cutting across clinical areas including clinical decision-making, communication, and leadership. Strategies for assisting nurses to access university education including innovative distance education methods are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations11
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Continuing Education in NursingSame topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207