Les effets potentiels de la version française du NCLEX-RN® sur le choix de la langue de formation d’étudiantes infirmières francophones en situation minoritaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Since the introduction of the new entry-to-practice exam, the NCLEX-RN®, there has been a very low success rate among francophone nursing students living in minority situations. In addition, there has been a drop in the number of candidates who choose to write the exam in French. These results are of great concern in terms of the quality and sustainability of French language health services in French language minority communities in Canada. Objectives: The purpose of this article is to present the results of a study exploring the experiences of students enrolled in an entry-level nursing program in French in terms of their decision-making regarding a) the choice of the language of the nursing program in which they were enrolled, b) the language in which they chose to write the NCLEX-RN®, c) their interest in working in a Francophone context, d) their general knowledge of the new entry-to-practice exam, and e) information sources on the NCLEX-RN©. Methodology: A sequential mixed methods design using surveys with multiple-choice and open-ended questions was used to conduct this study. Descriptive analyzes, as well thematic and content analysis, were used to analyze the data. Results: 51 students from a francophone graduating cohort participated in this study. The majority of the participants expected to write the NCLEX-RN® in English; the media attention on the French version of the exam influenced their decision. Four main themes were highlighted: a) choice of language of student based on their first language, b) three main factors that influence the choice of the language in which they write the NCLEX-RN®, c) colleagues and media as sources of information on the NCLEX-RN®, and d) importance and pride of studying in French. Conclusion: The results of this project shed light on the factors that influence francophone students’ decision-making regarding the choice of language for the exam and the reasons why graduating students would choose to study in French again or not.
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 | 0.033 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".