An undergraduate student-faculty collaborative EBP project supporting a campus-wide tobacco free campus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purposes of this paper are to describe a student-faculty, collaborative team and the evidence-based practice (EBP) project that supported a campus-wide, tobacco-free environment. Two faculty members served as mentors and undergraduate nursing students were selected to participate in a one credit independent study course outside the threaded curricular experiences. Weekly course meetings were used to assess course goals and EBP project progress. After reviewing literature evidence, a baseline campus survey, and focus group data, the best practice strategies were selected by the student-faculty collaborative team for a 3-year plan. The strategies included an orientation session to the tobacco-free campus during student fall orientations and a marketing campaign with social norm messaging. Pre and post-EBP project surveys to determine the effectiveness of the campaign were used to evaluate the outcomes of the team’s efforts. The undergraduate nursing students were effective in planning and implementing the project, and the students reported benefits and challenges to their involvement. The collaborative team was seen as an immensely positive experience despite the increased demands on time. Findings from this EBP project were similar to other literature on smoking abstinence on a college campus. One way to help undergraduate students better appreciate and gain expertise in the EBP process is to engage them in student-faculty collaborative EBP projects within the curriculum. In addition, an emersion experience offers expanded opportunities and greater expertise in EBP to students who can meet the challenge.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".