College Students’ Employability, Cognition, and Demands for ChatGPT in the AI Era Among Chinese Nursing Students: Web-Based Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) and the widespread use of ChatGPT, nursing students' artificial intelligence quotient (AIQ), employability, cognition, and demand for ChatGPT are worthy of attention. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate Chinese nursing students' AIQ and employability status as well as their cognition and demand for the latest AI tool-ChatGPT. This study was conducted to guide future initiatives in nursing intelligence education and to improve the employability of nursing students. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional survey to understand nursing college students' AIQ, employability, cognition, and demand for ChatGPT. Using correlation analysis and multiple hierarchical regression analysis, we explored the relevant factors in the employability of nursing college students. RESULTS: In this study, out of 1788 students, 1453 (81.30%) had not used ChatGPT, and 1170 (65.40%) had never heard of ChatGPT before this survey. College students' employability scores were positively correlated with AIQ, self-regulation ability, and their home location and negatively correlated with school level. Additionally, men scored higher on college students' employability compared to women. Furthermore, 76.5% of the variance was explained by the multiple hierarchical regression model for predicting college students' employability scores. CONCLUSIONS: Chinese nursing students have limited familiarity and experience with ChatGPT, while their AIQ remains intermediate. Thus, educators should pay more attention to cultivating nursing students' AIQ and self-regulation ability to enhance their employability. Employability, especially for female students, those from rural backgrounds, and students in key colleges, deserves more attention in future educational efforts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".