MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fear and learning in mental health settings

2002· article· en· W2068600991 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jacklin E. Fisher

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mental Health Nursing · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Violence and Bullying
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsPracticumMental healthFeelingWitnessPsychologyCritical Incident TechniqueCritical reflectionMedicineMedical educationPsychiatrySocial psychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health-care students are frequently concerned and anxious about entering the mental health setting for their clinical placement. There are many situations in mental health clinical settings in which the student will witness or become involved in incidents that may challenge existing values, attitudes, ethics and provoke strong emotions in the student. This paper examines clinical critical incidents that have been identified and reflected on by a cohort of second-year student nurses while undertaking their mental health clinical practicum. Data were gathered from 260 critical incident reports and was sorted into three broad categories: (i) student description of incident; (ii) immediate emotional response of the student to the incident; and (iii) student thoughts and feelings' about the incident after the opportunity for structured reflection. The findings demonstrate a wide range of positive, but predominantly, negative experiences. Witnessing psychotic behaviour and incidents involving both actual and threatened violence and verbal abuse dominated the critical incidents with 52% describing one or both of these issues. To illustrate the range of student-identified critical incidents, verbatim examples of student work are included.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.013
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.355 · 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

Citations76
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Mental Health NursingSame topicWorkplace Violence and BullyingFrench-language works237,207