Quiet Lampshade in the Corner? Exploring Fourth Year Nursing Students' Narratives of Transition to Professional Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recruitment and retention issues continue to be prevalent in all domains of nursing practice. Nursing students’ transition into practice is an understudied area of this concern. This study specifically explored the question: How do fourth year nursing students make meaning of their transition to professional practice? Data was collected from twenty-two field note journals and seven face-face interviews emerging from a capstone nursing theory course focused on nursing leadership, relational ethics, complex healthcare contexts and responsive action. For the participants of this study, the meaning of transitioning to practice manifested as: developing complex identity awareness, mediating expectations in the struggle with uncertainty; and longing to belong in the midst of feeling alien. The paper provides recommendations for pedagogical practice and for capacity building to bridge the tensions of the competing discourses of transition to professional practice within complex health care settings.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".