[Knowledge transfer and appropriation processes of nursing students and African settings of care: a multiple case study].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: in this era of globalisation and international academic training, many nursing programs offer the possibility of intercultural placement to their students in their initial training. The rise of this phenomena is ubiquitous throughout all Canadian universities, leading to increased student mobility at the international level with increased placements being organised at the international level, on several continents. PURPOSE: this exploratory study aims at better understanding the processes of knowledge transfer and appropriation during international and intercultural placements in nursing in African countries. FRAMEWORK: the models of empowerment and the Cycle of knowledge to practice have guided this study. METHOD: a multiple case study has been conducted with six settings of care from two countries of Africa. Individual interviews were conducted with the nursing students (n = 11) and with the African nurses supervisors (n = 9), and group interviews with the local partners (n = 2). Direct and participant observations were also done by the nursing students while they were in Africa in the summer and by the two principal investigators when they spent a week in the settings of care, the following fall. RESULTS : advantages of this learning activity were noted, especially in regards to personal and professional growth of the nursing students and in regards to knowledge transfer to the host settings. DISCUSSION : four themes emerged and led to recommendations as to the importance of: 1) bidirectional communication, continuity of projects between cohorts of nurses, and support at distance and on site, 2) reinforcement of the emancipatory sociopolitical knowing 3) diversity of care and community sites and expositions, and 4) different phases of the Cycle of knowledge to 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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".