MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915629667 · doi:10.7748/ns.2019.e11228

Enhancing the quality of clinical supervision in nursing practice

2019· review· en· W2915629667 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 · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling Practices and Supervision
Canadian institutionsHorizon Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRevalidationClinical PracticeNursingQuality (philosophy)Health careClinical supervisionMedicineNursing practicePsychologyMedical educationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical supervision has been an aspect of nursing practice in various forms for several years; however, it remains challenging to ensure its widespread implementation across healthcare organisations. There is an increasingly evident need for formalised support in nurses' busy practice settings, so it is important to improve the quality of clinical supervision in healthcare. This will also assist nurses in providing evidence of their continuing professional development as part of revalidation. This article provides an overview of clinical supervision, outlining its features and functions in healthcare practice. It includes three case studies related to group clinical supervision, discussing how this was implemented in each case and the various methods of group-working that were used.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.585
Teacher spread0.369 · 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