<p>Use of guest speakers in nursing education: an integrative review of multidisciplinary literature</p>
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
Background: The purpose of this paper is to review existing literature regarding the use of guest speakers in multidisciplinary education and discuss the implication of the findings in nursing education. Method: An integrative review including 18 papers from 13 disciplines. Results: The evidence indicates that guest speakers can be invited by a variety of stakeholders with various motivations. Individuals from both discipline-related practical fields and academic institutions are frequently invited. Guest speakers have the ability to promote better teaching outcomes. Having a database of potential speakers decreases the work of selecting future guest speakers. Guest speakers can also be virtual with the use of guest speakers growing. A flow model of using guest speakers, including seven steps, has been articulated. Involving guest speakers promotes reciprocal benefits, where guest speakers, students, and professors have dual roles and contribute to and gain from each other. Conclusion: Findings from multiple disciplines regarding guest speakers in higher education can inform the best possible practices and procedures in how to get the best use of guest speakers in undergraduate nursing education. However, further research and study are warranted within the discipline of nursing to produce findings directly applicable to nursing education. Keywords: guest speaker, guest lecture, online, multi-disciplinary literature, review
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 | 0.004 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| 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