Le rôle des préceptrices sagesfemmes dans l’évaluation de l’activité professionnelle des stagiaires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.018 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".