Nursing reflective practice: An empirical literature review
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
Reflective practice is a widespread concept in nursing; however, few empirical studies have demonstrated the possible effects of such a practice. The goal of this article is to present a review of the empirical literature on nursing reflective practice. Thirty-seven studies published between 1995 and 2012 were selected and analyzed to identify their common characteristics and structure. Most of them are qualitative in nature and were conducted in an academic context. Generally, few authors clearly define the reflective practice concept and the frames of reference on which their research is based. Furthermore, when reflective practice interventions are described, they have few points of comparison, which makes it hard to choose which intervention to prioritize to maximize the positive effects on nursing practice. Although a lot has been written on the advantages of reflective practice, nursing research on this concept remains at an early stage. The authors recommend various paths for future research.
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 | 0.009 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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