Baccalaureate Nursing Students' Perceptions of Learning in Mentored and Simulated Research Practica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A simulated research practicum was developed in our nursing program to increase the number of quality research placements for our students. In order to evaluate the success of this simulation activity, we compared students' experiences in simulated and traditional mentored research placements. METHOD: A convenience sample of baccalaureate nursing students enrolled in an introductory research course in Ontario, Canada, was surveyed. A two-group posttest survey design was used to assess the research activities students experienced and their satisfaction with placements. Data were compared between the traditional mentored research placements (MRP) and simulated research placements (SRP) using descriptive and inferential statistical testing. RESULTS: Students in the SRP group had a statistically significant higher level of exposure to several aspects of the research process, although course satisfaction ratings were slightly better in the MRP group. CONCLUSION: The simulated practicum provided our organization with a feasible means of providing high-quality research placements by exposing undergraduate nursing students to several aspects of the research process. [J Nurs Educ. 2019;58(5):290-293.].
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".