MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907642729 · doi:10.1097/nne.0000000000000642

Implementing Universal Design Instruction in Doctor of Nursing Practice Education

2018· article· en· W2907642729 on OpenAlexaff
Kelley M. Anderson, Diane Davis, Maureen McLaughlin

Bibliographic record

VenueNurse Educator · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Education and Employment
Canadian institutionsBC Studies
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumModalitiesMedical educationProcess (computing)Nurse educatorWork (physics)Nurse educationCurriculum developmentDoctor of Nursing PracticeMedicinePedagogyComputer sciencePsychologySociologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Faculty in Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) programs identify challenges of increased enrollment and variances in previous student educational preparation and professional experiences that require innovative approaches to curriculum transformation. PURPOSE: This article informs nurse educators about the vibrant and inclusive approach of universal design for instruction (UDI), a framework to conceptualize and implement learning strategies in the DNP curriculum. APPROACH: UDI is guided by 9 instructional principles that anticipate diverse learners and is intentionally inclusive of multiple ways of learning. Principles of UDI were synergized into several DNP didactic courses and the scholarly project process. CONCLUSION: Integration of UDI into the DNP curriculum included precourse assessments, multiple modalities of content delivery, options to present acquired knowledge, and supporting the adult learner through the iterative work of the scholarly project.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.381 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNurse EducatorSame topicDisability Education and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207