MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2228890533 · doi:10.1080/02615479.2015.1123689

Field Instructors’ Perceptions of Foundation Year Students’ Readiness to Engage in Field Education

2016· article· en· W2228890533 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

VenueSocial Work Education · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicOutdoor and Experiential Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoundation (evidence)PerceptionField (mathematics)PsychologyMedical educationAnxietyQualitative researchAffect (linguistics)PedagogyMathematics educationSociologyMedicinePolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to examine field instructors’ perceptions of foundation year students’ readiness to engage in field education in a delayed entry field model. Eighteen field instructors were interviewed and an additional 68 field instructors responded to an online survey about information they received about students’ performance in simulated situations. Their expectations and impressions of foundation MSW students were also elicited. Responses were analyzed using descriptive qualitative methodology. Themes emerged related to instructors’ perceptions about students’ anxiety, the importance of the field instructor–student relationship, and issues that can negatively affect student learning, such as ageism.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.381 · 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