Second-Year Baccalaureate Nursing Students’ Decision Making in the Clinical Setting
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
<H4>ABSTRACT</H4> <P>This qualitative, intrinsic case study explored the decision-making activities of baccalaureate nursing students in the second year of a 4-year program. It sought to discover how second-year students determine the need to make a clinical decision, how they respond to a pending clinical decision, the types of decisions made in the clinical setting, and the factors that enhance or impede decision making.</P> <P>The study involved 12 students, all of whom were enrolled in their first clinical rotation on an inpatient unit and completed journals and interviews. Inductive analysis revealed three key encounters that demonstrated students&#146; decision making: encounters with the patient, nursing staff, and clinical tutor. Each encounter revealed an emotion-based and knowledge-based response to various clinical situations. Decisions were evident within each of the three encounters. Implications for curriculum development and clinical tutors are described.</P> <H4>AUTHORS</H4> <P>Received: May 18, 2004</P> <P>Accepted: January 20, 2005</P> <P>Dr. Baxter is Assistant Professor, and Dr. Rideout is Associate Professor (retired), McMaster University, School of Nursing, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.</P> <P>Address correspondence to Pamela Baxter, PhD, RN, Assistant Professor, McMaster University, School of Nursing, 1200 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8N 3Z5; e-mail: <A HREF="mailto:baxterp@mcmaster.ca">baxterp@mcmaster.ca</A>.</P>
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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