Creating Community: Strengthening Education and Practice Partnerships through Communities of Practice
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
Nursing students frequently experience disconnectedness, marginalization and antagonism during their clinical experiences. These experiences limit their ability to fully engage in the social learning that is important to the development of professional skill and identity. Current North American education models emphasize the separation between practice and education, with negative consequences for students and their learning. Re-envisioning the relationship between education and practice using Wenger’s Communities of Practice model promotes the development of mutually beneficial, capacity-building relationships where learning and growth are goals for students and staff alike. Re-creating units as learning organizations committed to learning, reflection, dialogue and quality improvement redefines the education-service relationship and changes the roles of educators and practitioners with respect to the unit learning needs. Wenger’s Communities of Practice model redefines the apprenticeship model of nursing education in ways that allow for more meaningful, effective learning relationships between clinicians, educators and students.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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