MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2418750211 · doi:10.7748/ns.30.40.40.s44

The effect of nursing staff on student learning in the clinical setting

2016· article· en· W2418750211 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

VenueNursing Standard · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsMohawk CollegeMcMaster Children's HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingNurse educationFocus groupPsychologyQualitative researchMedicineNursing staffNurse educatorMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim To explore baccalaureate nursing students' perspectives of the influence of nursing staff on their learning and experience in the clinical setting. Method A qualitative description approach was used. Thirty nursing students were interviewed individually or in focus groups. Data were analysed using content analysis. Four researchers analysed the data separately and agreed on the themes. Findings Nursing staff had positive (enabling) and negative (hindering) effects on students' clinical learning and socialisation to nursing. Nursing staff may encourage and excite students when they behave as positive mentors, facilitators and motivators. However, their actions may also have a negative effect on students, decreasing their confidence, learning and desire to continue in the profession. Conclusion Nursing staff influence student learning. Their actions, attitude and willingness to teach are influential factors. The findings have implications for patient safety, nurse retention and recruitment, and preparing students for professional practice.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.395 · 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