MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W246115309

Integrating experiential learning into a double degree masters program in nursing and health informatics.

2012· article· en· W246115309 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elizabeth M. Borycki, Noreen Frisch, André Kushniruk, Marjorie McIntyre, David Hutchinson

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth informaticsExperiential learningCertificateInformaticsMedical educationNurse educationPublic health informaticsNursingCONTESTIntersection (aeronautics)Computer scienceKnowledge managementMedicinePsychologyHealth policyPedagogyPublic healthEngineeringHRHISPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada there are few nurses who have advanced practice competencies in nursing informatics. This is a significant issue for regional health authorities, governments and electronic health record vendors in Canada who are implementing electronic health records. Few Schools of Nursing provide formalized opportunities for nurses to develop informatics competencies. Many of these opportunities take the form of post-baccalaureate certificate programs or individual undergraduate or graduate level courses in nursing. The purpose of this paper will be to: (1) describe the health and human resource issues in this area in Canada, (2) provide a brief overview of the design and development of a new, innovative double degree program at the intersection of nursing and health informatics that interleaves cooperative learning, (3) describe the integration of cooperative learning into this new program, and (4) outline the lessons learned in integrating cooperative education into such a graduate program.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.376 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicInterprofessional Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207