MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293103335 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v12n8p1

Effectiveness of learning intramuscular injection techniques with aid of an interactive APP

2022· article· en· W4293103335 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chu-Ling Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntramuscular injections and effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest (biology)Medical educationResearch ObjectComputer scienceDisciplineMedicinePsychologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, an interactive application (app) for learning intramuscular injection is developed through an interdisciplinary collaboration, and its effectiveness in learning is explored. APP is application software. The research object is a second-year student of the nursing department of a university of science and technology. The study results indicated that only 1 out of 57 students failed to obtain a score of 60 on a technical test, whereas the other students all scored 60 or higher (a score of 60 or higher is regarded as the acceptable range). For the self-assessment of learning effectiveness, the three items with the highest average scores were “It helps students to improve their self-confidence,” “It helps the integration with practical operations,” and “It enhances my after-school learning and meets my learning needs.” Furthermore, the students indicated that the interactive app helped them clarify technical procedures and precautions, deepen their knowledge, and clarify clinical concepts. Moreover, more planning and communication is required for the teaching of nursing techniques and cross-disciplinary integration of technologies. This study aims to provide a reference for nursing educators and integrate technology applications in nursing teaching to enhance the learning effectiveness of students in relation to nursing techniques.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicIntramuscular injections and effectsFrench-language works237,207