Location! Location! Location! Comparing Simulation Debriefing Spaces
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
BackgroundSpace is a commodity that is in high demand for both theoretical education and performance-based education. With the global nursing shortage, nursing educators are seeing an increase in their enrollment numbers making space more difficult to attain. We know that an integral component of nursing simulation is the use of deliberate reflection in the post-simulation debriefing. However, there have been very few comparisons and no studies were found on how the location of the debriefing effects the student experiences.MethodsUsing the Debriefing Experience Scale, a quasi-experimental design with a convenience sample of 4th-year undergraduate nursing students compared the experience of debriefing in one room versus using multiple rooms.ResultsTwo areas were identified as statistically significant; “the importance of the debriefing to help make connections between theory and real life” and “the debriefing environment was physically comfortable.”ConclusionDebriefing experiences were largely the same. The two items that were identified as different need to further be explored to determine how this might affect participants’ simulation debriefing experience.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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