MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Time to Truly Acknowledge What Nursing Preceptors Do for Students

2008· article· en· W1984764996 on OpenAlexaff
Olive Younge, Paul Hagler, Cheryl Cox, Shawn Drefs

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for Nurses in Staff Development · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingPsychologyMedical educationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Through a mailed survey, 86 nursing preceptors reported that preceptoring was an informal, extra duty and mostly not part of a job description. It was concluded that preceptors require higher quality preparation, systematic support, and acknowledgment of their work. This article focuses on the challenges associated with the role of a nursing preceptor and enables establishment of proactive policies regarding how to retain and acknowledge current preceptors and recruit staff nurses to the preceptor role.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations27
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for Nurses in Staff DevelopmentSame topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207