The Multiple Mini Interview for admission to nursing – male perspectives
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
<ns4:p>This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Aims: The aim of this study was to gain the perspectives of men undergoing recruitment to a nursing degree programme by the process of multiple mini interviews (MMIs). Background: MMIs are used increasingly to select undergraduate students for degree courses, particularly in the healthcare sciences but the impact of MMIs on initiatives to increase gender diversity in these professions is unknown. Design: The study employed a qualitative research approach using a thematic framework of the MMI process. Methods: The study took place between January 2018 - April 2018 and a total of eight students attended for focus groups. Results: Respondents viewed the MMI process as stressful, and also reported that some of the stations created more stress than others, as they were conscious of the gender issues within some of the scenarios. Despite this they also reported the MMI to be a satisfactory selection tool. Conclusion: Participants found the use of MMIs to comprise a valid selection process which, while imperfect and female-dominated, did not unduly disadvantage male candidates. Further research involving multiple nursing schools as well as medical schools is needed to further evaluate the impact of the MMI as a selection tool on male applicants.</ns4:p>
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 | 0.000 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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