Evaluation of a Redesigned Canadian Undergraduate Nursing Program: A Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine the degree to which the educational outcomes of the accelerated, redesigned bachelor of science in nursing (BSN) program at The British Columbia Institute of Technology are similar to those of its previous program. METHOD: A prospective cohort study compared outcomes for the first two classes of students in the redesigned program with those of the final class of students in the original program. Data were gathered from administrative records, focus group discussions, and online surveys for BSN students (later, graduates), faculty, and staff, a focus group discussion with Specialty Nursing faculty, and interviews with program leadership and representatives of provincial health authorities. RESULTS: No differences were found between the two programs for most outcomes. CONCLUSION: Although hindered by some low response levels, the evaluation data indicate that the British Columbia Institute of Technology's redesigned BSN program's educational outcomes are largely similar to those of its predecessor. [J Nurs Educ. 2017;56(8):484-489.].
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".