MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Critical Thinking: Perceptions of Newly Graduated Female Baccalaureate Nurses

2003· article· en· W50050841 on OpenAlex
Judy E. Boychuk Duchscher

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritical thinkingConstruct (python library)PerceptionNursing practiceProcess (computing)PsychologyConceptual frameworkMedical educationPedagogyNursingEngineering ethicsMedicineSociologyComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nursing education strives to develop critical thinking through emphasis on process, inquiry, and reasoning. Although North American nursing education programs have recommended integrating the critical thinking construct into the conceptual framework that supports undergraduate nursing programs, critical thinking is still ambiguously and inconsistently applied within the profession. The research described in this article explored the development of thinking in five newly graduated baccalaureate RNs by accompanying them on the conceptual, theoretical, and practical evolutionary journey of their first 6 months in nursing practice and explicating their knowledge development over time, offering insights into the role of undergraduate education in teaching, and fostering critical thinking as an approach to nursing practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.373 · 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