Socializing for Authentic Caring Engagement in Nursing Practice: Nursing Student Moral Development in Preceptorship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to explore the basic psychosocial process of undergraduate nursing student moral development in clinical preceptorship. METHOD: A grounded theory approach was used to explore the process within the context of clinical practice and the student-preceptor-faculty member relationship. RESULTS: Socializing for authentic caring engagement in nursing practice emerged from the data as the basic psychosocial process of nursing student moral development in preceptorship. This process included four key categories: (a) distinguishing nursing and moral identity in practice, (b) learning to recognize the patient's experience, (c) identifying moral issues in practice and creating meaning of practice encounters, and (d) becoming an advocate and reconciling moral issues in practice. CONCLUSION: Findings emerging from this study illustrate the processes of how nursing students work through moral issues and the role of faculty and preceptors in engaging students with moral encounters in the context of preceptorship.
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 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 | 0.055 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".