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
Background: Nursing education faces challenges due to a shortage of nurse educators and nurses in the workforce, prompting programs to expedite training, impacting student and nurse well-being. While standards are high, studies reveal many students feel unprepared. Self-confidence is crucial, affecting clinical performance, as is effective communication, which is pivotal for safe patient care. Dyadic education, involving pairs, is gaining traction for its potential to enhance teamwork and reduce stress.Methods: This study explored dyadic teaching's impact on nursing students' self-confidence, communication, and clinical skills in the context of nursing practicums. A convenience sample of nineteen undergraduate nursing students participated in a survey assessing their experiences in dyads.Results/Conclusions: Findings suggest dyadic teaching fosters greater confidence, reduces stress, and enhances communication. However, limitations, including small sample size and retrospective data collection, underscore the need for further research. Introducing dyadic approaches in nursing curriculums holds promise for optimizing student learning and patient care outcomes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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