Perceptions of a Peer Learning Approach to Pediatric Clinical 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
With changing trends in the acute pediatric setting, there is concern that nursing students are not provided with sufficient opportunities to develop required clinical competencies. Peer learning can assist students in achieving learning objectives through efficient and effective use of limited resources. In this study the perceptions of students and clinical instructors in their use of peer learning are described. A qualitative descriptive design with semi-structured interviews was used. A convenience sample included nursing students (n=10) and clinical instructors (n=2). Participants had overall positive experiences with formalized peer learning. The novelty of a learning approach, support, communication and the facilitation of learning were the common emerging main themes; with several subthemes also identified. The results highlighted how the learning process was influenced by the students' status as novice nurses and how peer learning provided much needed emotional and physical support. Implications for clinical education are discussed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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