The Doctoral Seminar in nursing: an exploration of the literature and trends found in Canadian syllabi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A success-intended Doctoral Seminar, intentionally structured and facilitated to support students to thrive in their achievement of degree-level milestones, is assumedly the raison d'etre of the commonly-scheduled pass/fail Doctoral Seminar course in nursing doctoral programs. In this article, we review the literature regarding the Doctoral Seminar and the trends found in available Canadian Doctoral Seminar Syllabi. METHODS: A review of the literature guided by Finfgeld-Connett and Johnson's process; and, a document analysis of collected doctoral syllabi. RESULTS: Our review of Canadian Doctoral Seminar syllabi illuminated consistent attention to enabling the growth and development of doctoral skills, and a propensity towards higher-level thinking with scaffolded efforts to advance the production of new and original scholarship. Pedagogically, facilitation was the model and engagement with students was the strategy, giving way to student voice and a co-created experience. CONCLUSIONS: With global growth in doctoral nursing education, an international exploration of the best use of the doctoral seminar is therefore an imperative.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".