How Attending Physician Preceptors Negotiate Their Complex Work Environment: A Collective Ethnography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To generate an empiric, detailed, and updated view of the attending physician preceptor role and its interface with the complex work environment. METHOD: In 2013, the authors conducted a modified collective ethnography with observations of internal medicine medical teaching unit preceptors from two university hospitals in Canada. Eleven observers conducted 32 observations (99.5 hours) of 26 preceptors (30 observations [93.5 hours] of 24 preceptors were included in the analysis). An inductive thematic approach was used to analyze the data with further axial coding to identify connections between themes. Four individuals coded the main data set; differences were addressed through discussion to achieve consensus. RESULTS: Three elements or major themes of the preceptor role were identified: (1) competence or the execution of traditional physician competencies, (2) context or the extended medical teaching unit environment, and (3) conduct or the manner of acting or behaviors and attitudes in the role. Multiple connections between the elements emerged. The preceptor role appeared to depend on the execution of professional skills (competence) but also was vulnerable to contextual factors (context) independent of these skills, many of which were unpredictable. This vulnerability appeared to be tempered by preceptors' use of adaptive behaviors and attitudes (conduct), such as creativity, interpersonal skills, and wellness behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: Preceptors not only possess traditional competencies but also enlist additional behaviors and attitudes to deal with context-driven tensions and to negotiate their complex work environment. These skills could be incorporated into role training, orientation, and mentorship.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".