Applying New Science Leadership Theory in Planning an International Nursing Student Practice Experience in Nepal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Planning an international practice experience for nursing students is a challenging, but rewarding, opportunity. Kwantlen University College faculty members' experience of planning for 8 Bachelor of Science in Nursing students to study abroad was no exception. Faculty members' and students' interest prompted a request for a placement in Nepal. The faculty members involved in the planning were dedicated to using a process that would enable them to remain true to the program philosophy and theoretical underpinnings throughout the entire experience, from the planning phase to the follow-up presentation. Using Wheatley's theory, the students and faculty members reexamined their personal leadership styles to ensure they remained relationship focused, rather than task focused. Wheatley maintained that because the potentiality lies in building strong relationships, it is important to support the creative power that lies in those involved in a project. This article describes new science leadership and relates it to the planning phase for the practice experience in Nepal. Then, reflections on how the philosophy of the program may have influenced the experience are shared. Finally, critical reflection on using this theory in nursing education is presented.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".