MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Preceptor Behaviors Integral to the Promotion of Student Critical Thinking

2002· article· en· W2087185959 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 for Nurses in Staff Development · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreceptorCritical thinkingFacilitationPromotion (chess)PsychologyMeaning (existential)Medical educationPedagogyNursingMedicinePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the practice setting, preceptors not only contribute to the relational aspect of the preceptorship experience but, through their behaviors, they also effectively promote the critical thinking ability of students. Through the use of a grounded theory method in a recent study, four specific preceptor-generated behaviors were identified as integral to the promotion of the critical thinking ability of basic baccalaureate nursing students in the practice setting: role modeling, facilitation, guidance, and prioritization. In this article, the description and meaning of these four behaviors are explored and their significance to preceptors and nurse educators who wish to ensure that the critical thinking ability of nursing students is fostered in the practice setting is discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.357 · 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