Community Engagement Leads to Professional Identity Formation of Nursing Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Professional identity formation is essential to nursing education. Knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values help form nursing students’ identity. Professional identity is a process of becoming independent and having self-awareness of one’s educational journey (All Answers Ltd., 2018). Maranon and Pera (2015) described that the contrast between didactic and clinical learning may play a role in the ambiguity that initiates nursing students about professional identity. There is a gap in the current research literature and has been underexplored with no intentional plan to address new areas (Godfrey, 2020; Haghighat, Borhani, & Ranjbar, 2020). The goal of professional identity formation is to develop well-rounded students with moral competencies who will blossom into future nursing leaders (Haghighat et al., 2020). The benefit to the community of producing well-rounded nursing students is safety and quality in their actions. This descriptive paper will address examples of how professional identity may be achieved by nursing students’ participation in community engagement such as attendance to professional conferences and intentional mentoring.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".