Smartphones in Clinical Nursing Practice: A Multiphased Approach to Implementation and Deployment.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Students in the undergraduate nursing program at the University of Calgary - Qatar are required to work with patients in clinical settings under faculty supervision.. One of the main goals of clinical courses is to provide students with the opportunity to learn in context and ‘just-in-time’, a much more realistic and memorable learning experience. During clinical placements, students need to acquire additional information about illnesses, medication and patient care on site. The current research was conducted to determine if properly selected smartphone technology and accompanying software would help provide students with information they needed in a just-in-time fashion and if this would have a positive impact on their learning. A multi-phased study was developed to (1) determine the impact of smartphone and software deployment in clinical courses on student learning and to determine barriers and issues that may inhibit success [Phase 1] and (2) to use the knowledge gained in phase 1 to address these issues and barriers by optimizing e.g., deployment strategies [Phase 2]. Findings from phase 1 indicate success in terms of learning outcomes while also showing that students would prefer to use their own smartphones. Phase 2 is currently underway and will result in the development of implementation strategies based on evidence gained from phase 1 and mobile technology usage pattern survey (ECAR).
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it