MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6983771100

Nursing students achieving community health competencies through undergraduate clinical experiences: a gap analysis

2015· article· en· W6983771100 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen ULeth Scholarship (OPUS) (University of Lethbridge) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHistory of Computing Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)Community healthHealth careNurse educationOccupational health nursingFocus groupTeam nursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada, it is widely believed that nursing practice and health care will move from acute care into the community. At the same time, increasing numbers of nursing students are engaged in non-traditional clinical experiences for their community health rotation. These clinical experiences occur at agencies not organizationally affiliated with the health care system and typically do not employ registered nurses (RNs). What has yet to be established is the degree to which nursing students are actually being prepared for community health nursing roles through their community health clinical rotations. In this paper we report the findings of a mixed method study that explored the gap between desired and observed levels of competence in community health of senior nursing students and new graduates. The gap was quantified and then the nature of the gap further explored through focus groups.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.228
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen ULeth Scholarship (OPUS) (University of Lethbridge)Same topicHistory of Computing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207