Research Portfolio in a University-based Nursing School
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyzed the research portfolio conducted by the student nurses of the University of Cebu Banilad from 2007 to 2009. Furthermore, it determined the quality of the research portfolio of the same years and students. The findings served as the bases for a proposed research plan. This study utilized the descriptive-analytical design. A content analysis was employed to make a systematic examination of the research portfolio to ascertain the profile and the quality of the researches made. Specifically, this study used a researcher-made checklist-questionnaire in the gathering of data to determine the profile and the quality of the research projects.The study was conducted at the College of Nursing, University of Cebu Banilad. There were six Clinical Instructors who evaluated the research projects. Four of the Clinical Instructors are employees of the University of Cebu Banilad, while the other two are employees of the University of Cebu Lapu-Lapu & Mandaue.Based on the key findings of the study, the profile of the research portfolio was found to be: generally univariate and bivariate; health-related; descriptive-correlational; school-based projects; utilized respondents; employed simple random sampling; uses questionnaires; descriptive analysis; and education-thrust studies. On the other hand, the quality of the research portfolio from 2007 to 2009 had evolved from partially proficient towards proficient.Recommended citation: Labrador, J. B. & Amparado, M. A. P. (2015). Research Portfolio in a University-based Nursing School. Journal of Research in Nursing, 1(1), 90-100.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".