Situated approaches to information literacy for nurses: the view from a Canadian nurse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Abstract]: In the 21st century, literacy education is a critical element of Learning Futures in lifelong learning. In particular, information literacy, defined as the ability to retrieve, evaluate and apply information to a stated need, is one of the emerging key areas of literacy education. This paper focuses on the issue of information literacy in the context of lifelong learning for nurses in Canada. Contemporary healthcare environments are dynamic and complex. They are characterised by continual advances in information and communication technologies and by increasing emphasis on service in meeting the demands of clients as consumers. Entry to practice knowledge and skills rapidly become obsolete. Healthcare workers are challenged to develop and maintain information literacy in order to retain currency in such a demanding professional environment. Situativity, considering content, context and purpose, is one of several learner-centred pedagogical approaches that are currently impacting on lifelong learning. This paper examines the suitability of applying situativity to the information literacy needs of staff nurses in a rural hospital setting in Canada
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".