MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401154850 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v14n12p1

Exploring new frontiers in nursing education: Assessing the role of generative AI (chat GPT) in aligning family nurse practitioner coursework to AACN’s new essentials

2024· article· en· W4401154850 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tal Sraboyants, Liz Winer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCourseworkNursingPsychologyMedicineMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and purpose: Integrating Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) in higher education, specifically within health sciences, is increasingly recognized for its potential to enhance educational outcomes and efficiency. The American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) mandates the alignment of Family Nurse Practitioner (FNP) programs with its 2021 Essentials, a competency-based educational framework encompassing hundreds of specific standards. This study aims to evaluate a novel use of Gen AI: how effectively can a custom-trained gen AI tool (custom GPT from ChatGPT), align FNP course assessments with the AACN’s New Essentials, thereby potentially reducing faculty workload and improving curriculum accuracy.Methods: Through dialogue and uploading of relevant documents, a custom GPT (called Mapper) was trained from one FNP course to the subcompentencies within the 2021 Essentials. The Mapper was then used to align the assessments from one FNP course. The Mapper’s output was then compared to content expert alignments to assess accuracy.Results: Across all 10 domains of the AACN Essentials, the Mapper aligned with expert analysis with moderate to high accuracy. Initial analysis indicated correct alignment rate from 44% to 93% (average 66%), which improved to 70% (p < .05) upon further refinement of the Mapper tool by content expert. Potential novel alignments (average 26%), and misalignments (average 9%), provided by the Mapper were critically reviewed, leading to adjustments to the content expert’s original alignment, which enhanced the overall precision of the alignment. For example, misalignments were reduced to only 5% (p < .05). In post-analysis, Mapper aligned AACN subcompetencies incorrectly on average 4%, while the lead faculty was incorrect on average 6%.Conclusions: Gen AI has the potential to streamline the complex process of aligning curriculum to national standards. The GPT demonstrated a significant capacity to assist in this task with minimal error rates, but expert oversight remained crucial to ensure accuracy and relevance. This synergy between Gen AI and human expertise points to a promising avenue for enhancing curriculum development and alignment processes in nursing education and other disciplines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.121
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.121
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.252
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207