The Application of Mini-CEX in the examination of "admission reception" for young nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Objective] Mini-CEX was introduced to receptions ′s for young nurses in oder to find an easy examination method which cloud effectively enhance the nursing staffs' mixed ability.[Method] 87 nurses who graduated from school for 3 years were randomly divided into two groups.In each quarter year′s admission reception′s examination,the Mini-CEX examination method was applied to the observation group,while the control group was applied to tradition examination method.Academic records of two groups were compared and a questionnaires to measure Mini-CEX was made in observation group.[Result] There was significant difference in scores between two groups(P0.01).41 nurses(93.18%) from the observation group gave positive evaluation of Mini-CEX.39 nurses(88.64%) thought that it should be widely used in our hospital.All of the nurses thought that it could effectively promote the nursing staffs' mixed ability.[Conclusion] Mini-CEX is an easy and effective examination method which is worthy of promotion in the young nurses' standardized training and examination.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".