Using exploratory sequential mixed methods design to develop simulation safety practice tool (SSPT)
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
Aim To evaluate the face validity of a tool that assesses a student's safety during participation in simulation-based experiences. Design This study is the first phase of an exploratory sequential mixed methods design used for the development of a tool to support undergraduate nursing students' application of safety principles in simulation. Method The authors recruited 10 simulation experts from undergraduate nursing programs in Canada and the United States. Ten semi-structured interviews were conducted to assess the face validity of the tool. Thematic analysis was used to identify and generate themes using Braun and Clarke's approach. Results Based on feedback from the participants, the tool was updated iteratively until the final current version was created. The tool has the potential to support undergraduate nursing students in integrating safety principles in simulation settings; therefore, they may transfer this integration into clinical settings.
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| 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