MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964195063 · doi:10.3928/00220124-20080501-02

Continuing Professional Competence: Peer Feedback Success From Determination of Nurse Locus of Control

2008· review· en· W1964195063 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)NursingContinuing educationPersonalityProfessional developmentLocus of controlReflective practicePsychologyMedicineMedical educationPedagogySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continuing competence programs (CCPs) are becoming required in many nursing jurisdictions across Canada. CCPs have the common goal of ensuring nurses remain up-to-date and competent in their professional practice. They often incorporate reflective practice as a tool for nurses to critically explore their practice and professionalism on an ongoing basis. Feedback is one of the strategies within reflective practice which enables nurses to increase reflective capabilities and enhance professional performance through collegial exchange. Locus of control, a personality variable, is considered as a potential indicator of how receptive nurses may be toward CCPs. For CCPs to be optimally embraced by nurses, it is imperative that professional nursing bodies address nurses' loci of control in developing, supporting, and strategizing for reflective practice, generally, and feedback, specifically.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.434 · 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