MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325221474 · doi:10.3928/01484834-20110817-02

Structural and Psychological Empowerment and Reflective Thinking: Is There a Link?

2011· review· en· W2325221474 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 of Nursing Education · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpowermentPsychologyPerceptionConceptual modelFoundation (evidence)Process (computing)Critical thinkingHealth carePedagogyNursingMedical educationMedicineEpistemologyComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Baccalaureate nursing education prepares students to become registered nurses in evolving health care systems. During their program, students' perceptions of empowerment in the nursing profession begin to form, and they are introduced to the process of reflective thinking. The purpose of this integrative literature review is unique in that three concepts are examined and linked-structural empowerment (as conceptualized by Kanter), psychological empowerment (as described by Spreitzer), and reflective thinking (as characterized by Mezirow)-and a theoretical model for testing is proposed. In examining the conceptual links, it is apparent that all three are required for learning and nursing practice. By preparing students to be empowered, reflective professionals, it is proposed that they will be more effective in their academic and future practice work. The conceptual links and proposed model described in this article provide the foundation for building a body of evidence to support or refute this contention.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.583

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.223
GPT teacher head0.561
Teacher spread0.338 · 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