Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Clinical Tracking System for Undergraduate Nursing Students
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim. This study evaluated one commercially available clinical tracking system to determine its appropriateness for use within a school of nursing. Background. Collecting documentation during undergraduate clinical experiences (e.g., type of patient care experience, diagnosis, skills completed, competencies met) is a challenging undertaking for students and faculty. Little research has been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of clinical tracking systems. Method. A convenience sample of students and faculty completed an end-of-course survey that measured their satisfaction with the clinical tracking system. Results. Statistically significant (p < .05) differences were found between students and faculty in several areas: utility, technical issues, capacity to identify regulatory body achieved competencies, and usefulness of records generated. There was also a statistically significant (p < .01) difference in overall satisfaction, with faculty much more satisfied with the system than students. Conclusion. The clinical tracking system was found by faculty and students to be user friendly. Faculty overall were more satisfied with the system than students.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 it