MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986497388 · doi:10.2202/1548-923x.1827

Ready for What? An Exploration of the Meaning of New Graduate Nurses' Readiness for Practice

2010· article· en· W1986497388 on OpenAlexaff
Angela C. Wolff, Sandra Regan, Barbara Pesut, Joyce Black

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaCollege & Association of Registered Nurses of AlbertaRegistered Nurses' Association of OntarioWestern UniversityFraser Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)Exploratory researchMedical educationFocus groupPsychologyNursing practiceNursingMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dialogue continues on the "readiness" of new graduates for practice despite significant advancements in the foundational educational preparation for nurses. In this paper, the findings from an exploratory study about the meaning of new graduate "readiness" for practice are reported. Data was collected during focus group interviews with one-hundred and fifty nurses and new graduates. Themes were generated using content analysis. Our findings point to agreement about the meaning of new graduate nurses' readiness for practice as having a generalist foundation and some job specific capabilities, providing safe client care, keeping up with the current realities of nursing practice, being well equipped with the tools needed to adapt to the future needs of clients, and possessing a balance of doing, knowing, and thinking. The findings from this exploratory study have implications for policies and programs targeted towards new graduate nurses entering practice.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.005
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.239
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations115
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Nursing Education ScholarshipSame topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207