Views on Unsafe Nursing Students in Clinical Learning
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
Clinical education is a cornerstone of undergraduate nursing education programs. Although protecting patient safety in clinical learning experiences is a standard of practice, no standard definition of the "unsafe" student exists. The purpose of this study was to describe the viewpoints of undergraduate student nurses and their clinical educators about unsafe clinical student practices. Using Q methodology, 57 students and 14 clinical educators sorted 39 unsafe student practice statements. These statements were generated from an integrated review of nursing and related literature and two undergraduate student focus groups. The use of centroid factor analysis with varimax rotation produced three dimensions of unsafe student practices. An unsafe student was characterized by his/her Compromised Professional Accountability, Incomplete Praxis, and Clinical Disengagement. A shared attribute among these three features was violated professional integrity. While students' affective, cognitive, and praxis competencies were priority elements in the conceptualization of unsafe student practice, this study also identified the salient role of educators as active participants in preparation of safe practitioners.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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