"One to one tutorial system" teaching application in the training of new nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the application effect of to one tutorial teaching in the training of new nurses. Methods With the convenience sampling method 320 new nurses who worked in Tianmen First People's Hospital were included from July 2013 to August 2015. One hundred and twenty new nurses were enrolled into the control group from 2013. Two hundred new nurses were enrolled into the experimental group from 2014. In the control group, the new nurses were trained with the traditional teaching mode. In the experimental group, the new nurses were trained with to one tutorial teaching mode. The theory test, the operation test and the comprehensive evaluation of the new nurses in the 2 groups were compared every quarter. Results There were no significant differences in the theory test of the nurses between the control group and the experimental group in the first and second quarters (t=4.067, 4.151; P>0.05) . The score of the theory test of the nurses in the experimental group was significantly higher compared to the control group in the third and the fourth quarters (t=7.327, 5.406; P 0.05) . The score of the operation test of the nurses in the experimental group was significantly higher compared to the control group in the second, the third and the fourth quarters (t=4.630, 4.066, 3.838; P<0.05) . The score of the comprehensive evaluation of the nurses in the experimental group was significantly higher compared to the control group in the four quarters (t=7.810, 4.132, 6.186, 9.369; P<0.05) . Conclusions One to one tutorial teaching is helpful to improve the clinical work ability of new nurses. Key words: Nurses; Training; One to one tutorial system
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".