Development of latex wound models for the wound dressing training of nursing students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A model is an essential instrument for the practical training of nursing students before field training in the ward, and an aid which creates skill and confidence for the students. The objective of this research is to develop a latex wound model for the wound dressing training of nursing students. Three research procedures are 1) to study documents and data relating to the development of latex wound models, 2) to construct the latex wound models and the research instruments, and 3) to try out the latex wound models, and evaluate the latex wound models efficiency. Participants are the 60 second-year nursing students. A wet dressing type latex wound model efficiency evaluation form and a dry dressing type latex wound model efficiency evaluation form were used for data collection. A reliability of 0.884 and 0.889 was acquired. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test. The finding of the studying results indicated that the mean scores of efficiency of both invented wet dressing type and dry dressing type latex wound model were higher than that of the original wound model of the Faculty of Nursing at statistical significance (p < .05). The finding indicated that the latex wound model had higher quality than those of the original wound model. Also, it helps the Faculty of Nursing save budget on purchasing expensive models.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".