The contribution of research-based master’s theses to knowledge building in nursing
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose was to investigate the topics and method applied in research-based master's theses in nursing science.Methods: A total of 694 research-based master’s theses produced in a period of 30 years representing the entire period of a university programme in nursing science were examined. We used an explorative design with a deductive-inductive approach.Results: The master’s theses covered a variety of topics, ranging from basic theoretical and methodological issues to topics in clinical research, education and leadership. Four main themes were addressed: patient studies, practice studies, nursing education, and nursing management and leadership. Qualitative methods using interviews and some observations were the preferred approach. For those who used quantitative methods, surveys and a few quasi-experiments were identified. Nurses’ responsibility for providing high-quality and safe care is a fundamental issue in nursing science. When great changes in health care alter the conditions for reaching this aim, we identified that master’s students want to investigate the consequences for patients and nursing care. The fact that few students addressed education and leadership is worrying. It might affect the quality of education. Furthermore, one may question how nurses can be visionary and take a leading role, which is stated to be important in the literature, in developing future health and nursing care.Conclusions: Our study uncovered the importance of investigating research-based master’s theses because it provides a basis for reflection on topics that need to be emphasised in the future.
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 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 | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it