Preceptorship and Critical Thinking in Nursing Education
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although preceptorship is being used increasingly by nursing faculty in the practice setting, little is known about how preceptors teach and even less is known about how critical thinking is being fostered in that relationship. The purpose of this study was to examine the process used in preceptorship to develop and promote the critical thinking ability of baccalaureate nursing students. Using the grounded theory method, this study was conducted in a large tertiary care hospital. Participants included fourth-year baccalaureate nursing students (preceptees) and their staff nurse preceptors. Data collection was composed of semistructured interviews and observations of the preceptors and preceptees as they worked together in the practice setting. Secondary data sources included documents considered appropriate to the study (e.g., nurse notes, student journals). By constant comparative analysis of the data, the findings of this study revealed a process that reflects the enabling of students by preceptors to develop and promote their critical thinking ability in the practice setting.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it