MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2601601346 · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-738-2-41

Curricula Challenges and Informatics Competencies for Nurse Educators

2017· article· en· W2601601346 on OpenAlexaff
Ulla‐Mari Kinnunen, Elina Rajalahti, Elizabeth Cummings, Elizabeth M. Borycki

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformaticsHealth informaticsHealth Administration InformaticsNursingCurriculumMedical educationNurse educationBusiness informaticsEngineering informaticsMedicinePsychologyPedagogyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nursing informatics competencies are fundamental to nursing practice in all areas of nursing work, including direct patient care, administration and education. The recent activity relating to the development of nursing informatics competencies for beginning level nurses has exposed a paucity of understanding of the requirements for nursing informatics competencies for nurse educators. So, whilst the challenge of educating faculty to teach informatics has been limited, research into such competencies is required to meet this challenge. This paper describes the challenges and issues associated with nursing informatics competency development for faculty, outlines the capabilities of faculty, and presents a vision for the future of informatics education for faculty. The final requirement of the introduction of new competencies is to determine appropriate evaluation measures that reflect the requirements of all stakeholders.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
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 score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0100.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.360 · 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

Citations27
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207