MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103598078 · doi:10.3928/01484834-20100217-04

Peer Mentoring: Untapped Potential

2010· article· en· W2103598078 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMentoring and Academic Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeer mentoringMedical educationInstitutionClass (philosophy)Peer feedbackPeer groupPsychologyPeer reviewNurse educationNursingClass sizeMedicinePedagogyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peer mentoring is a potential solution to the many challenges that nursing education is faced with today, including increasing class sizes, rising competency requirements, decreasing number of faculty, tightening budgets, and shrinking clinical placement opportunities. This article describes a successful peer mentoring program in the nursing clinical learning center at a southern Ontario university. The benefits to mentors, students, and the educational institution are discussed. In their role, peer mentors develop an increase in confidence with skills as well as with leadership and teaching abilities. Peer mentors provide a student-centered service that results in frequent positive feedback from students in all levels of the nursing program. A suggestion for the future potential of this role also is offered to expand undergraduate nursing students' exposure to peer mentoring.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.364 · 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