MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1632227634 · doi:10.5539/res.v7n11p273

Clinical Supervision: Challenging the Nursing Environment?

2015· article· en· W1632227634 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marketa Vanclova, Zuzana Havrdová

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling Practices and Supervision
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinisterstvo Školství, Mládeže a TělovýchovyUniverzita Karlova v Praze
KeywordsCzechThematic analysisNursingFace (sociological concept)GRASPOrganizational cultureContext (archaeology)Qualitative researchPsychologySociologyMedicinePublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Models of clinical supervision implementation generally focus on the importance of organisational culture. Questions remain regarding the detailed nature of such a culture. There is a scarcity of information related to the culture of the nursing environment in the Czech Republic; however, it is upon this culture that any future strategy must be based. The goal of this paper is to grasp the ways in which nurses in Czech hospitals perceive the culture of the nursing environment with regard to the implementation of clinical supervision. An explorative research design was used based on qualitative approach. Fourteen in-depth interviews were conducted face to face. The interviews were recorded, transcribed in full, and then coded. Thematic analysis and axial coding led to the paradigm model reversed face of the nursing environment which makes visible the contrasts between cultural features of the Czech nursing environment and the culture of supervision as perceived by informants. Given the research evidence regarding the similarities between nursing culture in various countries, the paradigm model might be a source of inspiration beyond the Czech context.

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
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)0.0000.001

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 head0.269
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicCounseling Practices and SupervisionFrench-language works237,207