MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392255796 · doi:10.22374/cjmrp.v22i1.7

Le rôle des préceptrices sagesfemmes dans l’évaluation de l’activité professionnelle des stagiaires

2023· article· fr· W4392255796 on OpenAlexaffabout
Josée Lafrance

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Midwifery Research and Practice · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, sociology, and vocational training
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RÉSUMÉDurant leur stage en milieu de pratique, les étudiantes sages-femmes sont supervisées par despréceptrices qui jouent un rôle majeur dans l’évaluation de l’activité professionnelle des stagiaires. Afin decomprendre le rôle de ces préceptrices, une étude exploratoire et qualitative/interprétative a été menéeauprès de préceptrices pleinement impliquées dans l’évaluation en cours de stage au Québec. Le conceptde représentations professionnelles sert ici de lunette d’approche à cette étude. Les résultats indiquentque, quoiqu’elles puissent adopter plusieurs rôles, les préceptrices se perçoivent davantage dans un rôlede soutien et d’apprentissage que dans un rôle de juge. Elles favorisent donc l’évaluation formative plutôtque l’évaluation certificative. Nommé par le quart des participantes, le rôle de psychologue à l’égard d’unestagiaire apparait comme une nouveauté par rapport aux écrits scientifiques au sujet de l’évaluation pardes préceptrices de l’activité professionnelle de stagiaires. La qualité de l’évaluation de la préceptrice sagefemmeest aussi garante de la qualité de la pratique professionnelle à l’égard des mères et des nouveaunés.
 ABSTRACTDuring their placements in practice settings, midwifery students are supervised by preceptors whoplay a major role in assessing their professional activity. To understand the role of these preceptors, anexploratory and qualitative/interpretive study was conducted with preceptors who are fully involved inplacement assessment in Quebec. The concept of professional representations serves here as a lens for thisstudy. The results indicate that, although they may adopt multiple roles, preceptors see themselves morein a supportive and teaching role than in a judging role. They therefore favour formative evaluation ratherthan certification-based evaluation. Mentioned by a quarter of the participants, the role of psychologist totrainees appears to be a new development when compared to the scientific literature on the evaluation bypreceptors of the professional activity of trainees. The quality of the midwifery preceptor's assessment alsoensures the quality of professional practice for mothers and newborns.

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 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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.615
GPT teacher head0.550
Teacher spread0.065 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Midwifery Research and PracticeSame topicEducation, sociology, and vocational trainingFrench-language works237,207