MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Promoting Effective Preceptorship Experiences

2005· review· en· W2330517354 on OpenAlex
Olive Yonge, Flo Myrick, Linda Ferguson, Florence Lughana

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 Wound Ostomy and Continence Nursing · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling Practices and Supervision
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLibrary scienceMedicineArchaeologyGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preceptors and students alike want and need a positive preceptorship experience. There are some factors, however, that must be considered when arranging such experiences, including sufficient time, workload management, use of space, monetary payment for preceptorship, preparation for the role, the one-to-one relationship, and the learning environment. This article concludes with specific strategies that address these factors. The first uses a theoretical model, one advocated by the authors, the Preceptor Enabling Model. This model delineates the roles and responsibilities of students, preceptors, staff, and faculty. Preceptors, too, need preparatory workshops, paid time for orientation to the role, evaluation of preceptors, and finally, support.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.362 · 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