MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000776978 · doi:10.3928/01484834-20090301-02

Exposing Shame and Its Effect on Clinical Nursing Education

2009· review· en· W2000776978 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 · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsCollege of the Rockies
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShameContext (archaeology)PsychologyNurse educationNursingMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shame is identified as a universal dynamic in education. Brain-based learning theory suggests negative emotions like shame have a powerfully detrimental effect on learning. Shame theory may explain why students have difficulty identifying with professional nursing culture. Yet shame has neither been directly described nor referred to in the context of clinical nursing education. Accordingly, the aim of this article is to raise awareness among nurse educators about shame and its potential effect on students' ability to learn in clinical nursing education. This article examines shame in its many manifestations; the power to shame inherent in the clinical context; the consequences of shame on students' ability to learn; and, finally, the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed by nurse educators to heal and prevent shaming in clinical nursing education.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.554
Teacher spread0.396 · 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