MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evidence-Based Nursing Education: Myth or Reality?

2005· review· en· W6415189 on OpenAlex
Linda Ferguson, Rene Day

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 · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNurse educationTacit knowledgeNursingExperiential learningMedicineNurse educatorNursing researchMedical educationPsychologyPedagogyComputer scienceKnowledge management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the concept of evidence-based nursing education. Because nurse educators incorporate evidence-based practice as a basic tenet of their programs, they assume nursing education itself is evidence based. Nursing education has a body of knowledge on which nurse educators base teaching, educational strategies, and curricular designs, but most of this knowledge is tacit, experiential, and based on practice. This knowledge relates to the art of teaching in nursing and can warrant the practice of nurse educators. However, research is also necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of teaching approaches and strategies. Nurse educators need to develop the science of nursing education through qualitative and quantitative research, to add to the tacit knowledge underpinning nursing education strategies. When the science of nursing education is adequately developed through rigorous research, we will truly be able to say that nursing education is evidence based. Until then, it may be only a myth.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.682
GPT teacher head0.685
Teacher spread0.002 · 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