MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968102571 · doi:10.3928/01484834-20120309-01

Typology of Undergraduate Nursing Students’ Unsafe Clinical Practices: Q-Methodology

2012· article· en· W1968102571 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicQ Methodology Applications
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTypologyObligationNursingPsychologyMoral obligationPatient safetyMedical educationCritical appraisalHealth careMedicineSociologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Undergraduate nursing students, as members of the health care team, must uphold patient safety as a professional and moral obligation during their clinical learning experiences. To address this imperative, in a humanistic paradigm, students engage in critical appraisal of self as a developing practitioner. Using Q-methodology, this study describes undergraduate nursing students' subjective understanding of unsafe clinical practices, and results revealed a typology of five groups of unsafe students. The results showed four discrete groups of students at risk for unsafe clinical practices-vulnerable, unprepared, unknowing, and distanced students. Overall, a consensus viewpoint described the presence of the displaced student as the greatest safety risk. Use of this typology as an assessment guide may help students and educators cooperatively create and maintain a culture of safety while developing competent novice nurses.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.774
GPT teacher head0.709
Teacher spread0.065 · 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