MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620342124 · doi:10.4018/ijmbl.2017070101

Reflections on Distributive Leadership for Work-Based Mobile Learning of Canadian Registered Nurses

2017· article· en· W2620342124 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dorothy Fahlman

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Learning in Education
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)Health careProfessional developmentWork (physics)PsychologyKnowledge managementMedical educationNursingPublic relationsPedagogyMedicinePolitical scienceComputer scienceManagementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ubiquity, flexibility, and accessibility of mobile devices can transform how registered nurses in Canada learn beyond the confines of traditional education/training boundaries in their work settings. Many Canadian registered nurses have actively embraced mobile technologies for their work-based learning to meet their competency requirements for professional nursing practice. As self-directed learners, they are using these learning tools at point-of-need to access rich online healthcare resources, collaborate, and share information within their communities of practices. Yet, paradoxically, there are Canadian healthcare organizations that have not embraced work-based mobile learning and their contextual factors constrain and/or impede registered nurses' learning. Therefore, the goal of this reflective paper is to stimulate discussion on distributive leadership strategies for embedding this pedagogical mode of learning into Canadian healthcare workplaces for registered nurses' ongoing skills and continuing professional development.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.601

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0440.020
Scholarly communication0.0120.003
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Mobile and Blended LearningSame topicMobile Learning in EducationFrench-language works237,207