Should the concepts chosen to guide concept-based curricula be threshold concepts?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we propose that the concepts guiding concept-based curricula should be threshold knowledge concepts. We briefly discuss some of the hurdles of current concept-based curricular designs and describe how the concepts themselves, paradoxically, might perpetuate the continued emphasis on content in nursing courses. Until now, threshold concept theory has not been part of the mainstream conversation about concept-based curricula. Threshold concepts act as portals to professional identity development and are recognized by their troublesome and transformative potential to enhance knowledge acquisition and change worldviews. This feature differentiates them from the core concepts often described within concept-based curriculum literature. The identification of threshold concepts in existing nursing courses might help structure curricular revision with the goal of enhancing transfer of learning and decreasing faculty resistance to the concept-based curricular approach.
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 | 0.022 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".