The Fourth Industrial Revolution and its Implications for Nursing Education
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
Abstract Rapidly emerging AI technologies provide promising opportunities in many industries, including healthcare. AI health technologies (AIHTs) have gained popularity within health systems due to their ability to sort and analyze vast amounts of research evidence, clinical data, and patient information. AI enables the identification of patterns that can enhance knowledge generation and improve decision-making. As a result of these capabilities to transform various aspects of health systems, nurses will need to function in vastly different roles and care delivery models as AIHTs become more pervasive in many healthcare systems. Increasing evidence in the literature shows how AI algorithms and robots are already changing the nurse's role in healthcare delivery. The emergence of new roles and models in the nursing profession will require changes in the core competencies and educational requirements of nurses in all domains of their practice, including administration, clinical care, education, policy, and research. As researchers delve deeper into the potential impacts of AI health technologies (AIHTs) on nursing, particularly in nursing education, it is essential to consider the implications of these developments for nursing education. How will today's nurses be trained to function in an everchanging healthcare system where AI is increasingly pervasive? This article discusses the implications of AI and the changes needed in nursing education to ensure that nurses can deliver quality care in healthcare systems as AI becomes pervasive.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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