MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001734519 · doi:10.2202/1548-923x.1802

Successful Transition of the New Graduate Nurse

2009· article· en· W2001734519 on OpenAlexaffabout
Donna M. Romyn, Noreen Linton, Cathy Giblin, Brenda Hendrickson, Lori Houger Limacher, Carol Murray, Pamela M. Nordstrom, Gail Thauberger, Di Vosburgh, Leianne Vye-Rogers, Arlene Weidner, Colleen M Zimmel

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaBow Valley CollegeMount Royal UniversityCollege & Association of Registered Nurses of AlbertaRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of CanadaAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of CalgaryAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkforceWork (physics)Transition (genetics)Nurse practitionersNursingNurse educatorMedical educationProcess (computing)PsychologyMedicinePublic relationsNurse educationHealth carePolitical scienceComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reports that new nurse graduates are not sufficiently prepared to enter the workforce are of concern to educators, employers, and other stakeholders. Often, this lack of 'practice readiness' is defined in relation to an inability to 'hit the ground running' and is attributed to a 'gap' between theory and practice and the nature of current work environments. To gain a deeper understanding of the process of making the transition from student to graduate nurse, discussion groups were held across Alberta with 14 new graduates and 133 staff nurses, employers, and educators. Five additional new graduates and 34 staff nurses, employers, and educators provided input by fax or e-mail. The findings of this initiative speak to the need to examine assumptions underlying 'practice readiness' and what constitutes an effective transition to the workplace. The problems to be addressed are complex and a wide range of sustainable, evidence-based approaches are required to resolve them.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.392 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations140
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Nursing Education ScholarshipSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207