Removing Ableist Barriers in Nursing Education: Clinical Essential Requirements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current approach to clinical placement training for nurses excludes students with disabilities. The purpose of this article is to introduce a four-step model for nursing programs to identify clinical essential requirements – specific skills and competencies students must gain during placement. Engaging this four-step model will allow educators to identify how essential requirements can be achieved in a variety of ways, and thus can involve accommodations. It will also allow for the identification of which essential requirements cannot be accommodated and must be demonstrated in a prescribed manner due to impacting the nature or integrity of the task. Analyzing clinical essential requirements using this framework will create a consistent and defensible method to determine the flexibility or inflexibility of clinical tasks. The framework provided requires a collaborative process including key experts, nursing students and nurses with disabilities to comprehensively address the challenges clinical environments pose to inclusiveness.
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 | 0.025 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".