MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2624382692 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v7n11p14

Motivation and personal challenges while enrolled in higher education: The pathway to becoming a baccalaureate nurse

2017· article· en· W2624382692 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sarah Kelly, Kathleen Evanovich Zavotsky, Erin Delany, Claudia Pagani, Christopher Duffy, Elisheba Haqq-Stevens, Myrna Young

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRobert Wood Johnson Foundation
KeywordsTheme (computing)PsychologyMedical educationPerceptionFocus groupQualitative researchNursingMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The exploration of the non-traditional or self-sufficient financially independent student experiences in higher education are considerably less researched, specifically addressing personal experience while pursuing higher education, when compared to traditional, those who recently graduated from high school, college students. Therefore, the objective of this study was to explore non-licensed hospital employees’ (paraprofessional) perceptions related to their motivation to obtain a baccalaureate degree and overcome personal challenges to become a registered nurse.Methods: A qualitative descriptive focus group research design was used to explore the perceptions of minority paraprofessional employees had related to their motivations and challenges to become a registered nurse. All student- paraprofessionals, who were funded through the Robert Wood Johnson grant program, were invited to participate in this study. A semi-structured interview guide was used to explore the participants’ thoughts about obtaining a college degree and what their motivation is for obtaining a college degree in nursing. Informal questions were used to involve the participants in the discussion. The study was approved by the university’s institutional review board and participants completed an informed consent prior to any data collection.Results: Five participants were engaged in this study. The major theme that these participants reported was the different challenges and sacrifices (finances and life situations) that they had to deal with prior to starting courses and while they were currently taking courses. The second theme was motivation; these participants were motivated to have a better life.Conclusions: These participants had to deal with certain challenges and make sacrifices in order to pursue their dream; however, the participants were able to find the needed motivation to achieve their dreams and become a registered nurse.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.239
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice→Same topicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration→French-language works237,207→