Comparative Study of Nursing PhD Education System and Curriculum in Iran and Alberta School of Nursing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction:In order to adapt a fast changing health care system, it is necessary to prepare the content of a high-quality nursing program.Comparing different educational systems is one of the evaluation methods that improves the content and quality of the curriculum.Objective: The aim of this study was to compare comparative nursing education in Iran and Alberta and provide practical suggestions for improving its quality.Materials and Methods: This descriptive-comparative study was performed in 2018.The four-stage Beredy model of description, interpretation, neighborhood and comparison was used to compare the Iranian nursing education system to the Nursing Faculty of Alberta university.Data were collected by Persian and English Googling.Then, the data were compared according to the aim of the research.Results: The program of both universities based on the principles of strategic planning with mission, vision and values.At Alberta University, the attention was focused onappropriate link between the lesson plan and the needs and problems of the community.The Ph.D. curriculum of the Iranian Nursing have a lot in common with that of University of Alberta regarding profile and structure of the course.Also, the comparison showed that applying the University of Alberta is subjected to having a postgraduate degree in nursing and a certificate in research statistics and language proficiency and clinical recordsare essensial for non-Canadians.But in Iran, student admission is subject to a master's degree.Discussion and Conclusion: One of the strengths of the Ph.D. program in Iran can be the alignment of the values and beliefs of the program based on the Islamic values system and gaining competencies such as critical thinking, clinical argumentation, problem solving, evidence-based decision making, and the recording of an analytical report.Lacking the clinical base and the absolute emphasis on theory and especially research are the weaknesses.Therefore, based on the experiences of the advanced countries and the needs of the Iranian community, we need to correct the weaknesses and strengthen the strengths.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".