MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2533969509 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v7n3p20

Bridging the theory-practice dichotomy in nursing: The role of nurse educators

2016· article· en· W2533969509 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridging (networking)Nursing theoryMeaning (existential)Nursing practiceNursingBridge (graph theory)PsychologyClinical PracticeMedicineMEDLINEComputer sciencePolitical sciencePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The theory-practice gap is a quandary that many researchers have been trying to resolve for several decades in many practice disciplines. Nursing as a practice discipline encounters this predicament due to the fact that nursing knowledge is not yet well-defined. In this paper, we discuss the meaning of knowledge in general and nursing knowledge in particular. We also discuss the role of nurse educators in delineating the impact of knowledge on nurses’ practice and patients’ outcomes. Finally we suggest approaches for nursing faculty to bridge the theory-practice gap to assist students to apply theory to their clinical practice.

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.363 · 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