MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403102166 · doi:10.1080/13611267.2024.2410803

Communication in an undergraduate psychiatric nursing peer mentorship program: considerations and strategies for facilitators

2024· article· en· W4403102166 on OpenAlex
Nadine Smith, Andrea E. Thomson, Dana Naismith

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

VenueMentoring & Tutoring Partnership in Learning · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMentoring and Academic Development
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMentorshipPsychologyMedical educationNursingMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peer mentorship programs are an effective tool to help individuals navigate the academic challenges and stressors in an undergraduate program. A qualitative study, focusing on peer mentors and mentees in a psychiatric nursing program was conducted. Nine participants from an undergraduate psychiatric nursing program took part in an interview using a semi-structured interview guide. The experiences of the mentor and mentee was analyzed and a common theme surrounding the importance of communication between the mentor and mentee was found throughout. The experiences of communication between the mentor and mentee are explored and strategies to assist peer mentorship program facilitators are provided.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.333 · 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