A COMPARISON OF PROFESSIONAL NURSING VALUES SCORES OF ACCELERATED AND FOUR-YEAR BACCALAUREATE NURSING STUDENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine if differences exist in professional\nnursing values scores of students in accelerated and four-year baccalaureate nursing programs. Participants in this study were nursing students (N=173) from one Canadian university enrolled in the penultimate semester of an eighteen month accelerated baccalaureate program and a traditional four-year program. Ware’s emerging theory Building on a Foundation ofKnowledge by ‘Taking it All In ’was the theoretical framework for this study. In the present study, the effect of program length on students’ professional nursing values scores was examined. Program length addresses the passage oftime, one aspect of Ware’s theory. Participants completed the 26-item Revised Nursing Professional Values Scale (Weis & Schank, 2000), which addresses five aspects of professional nursing values formation. Relationships among total scores and demographic variables were also examined. Overall, there were no significant differences in total scores between groups. Although accelerated students had higher total scores on all five subscales, only the difference between groups on one subscale, activism, was statically significant. Results of this study lend support for the ongoing creation and development of accelerated baccalaureate nursing programs as an effective form of nursing education. Further research about Ware’s theory and professional nursing values formation is warranted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".