MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941183002 · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-d-18-00011

Characteristics of the collaborative learning unit practice education model for undergraduate nursing students: a scoping review protocol

2019· review· en· W2941183002 on OpenAlexaff
Lenora Marcellus, Darlaine Jantzen, Diane Sawchuck, Carol Gordon, Robin Humble

Bibliographic record

VenueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsCamosun CollegeUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnit (ring theory)Medical educationProtocol (science)Nurse educationCollaborative learningNursingMedicinePsychologyPedagogyMathematics educationAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

REVIEW QUESTION: What evidence on characteristics and processes of the collaborative learning unit practice education model for undergraduate nursing students is available?

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)0.190
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.280
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1900.280
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.017
Bibliometrics0.0160.017
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.004

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.620
Teacher spread0.435 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation ReportsSame topicInterprofessional Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207