“Gaining Perspective”: A Photovoice Study of a Circumpolar Experience for Northern Canadian Nursing Students in Northern Norway
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The benefits of study-abroad experiences for nursing students have been well documented. Since 2010, an undergraduate nursing program in Northern Canada has had an exchange partnership with nursing schools in Northern Norway. Given the mostly anecdotally reported successes of the exchanges, this study aimed to formally investigate the educational experiences of Northern Canadian nursing students who completed a clinical practicum and cultural experience in Northern Norway. Methods: This qualitative study employed photovoice methodology. As photovoice is participatory action research (PAR), students learned about the methodology prior to embarking on their international exchange. While abroad, they engaged in photographic documentation that later served as a catalyst for data collection (interviews and focus group) and data analysis. Aligned with PAR, students participated with the researchers in data analysis. Moreover, the photos and stories later served as a tool to bring about action; specifically, the students endorsed future exchanges. Results: Four nursing students (n = 3 in third year; n = 1 in fourth year) who completed a 7-week course in Northern Norway during 2023 participated in this study. Thematic analysis revealed “gaining perspective” as the overarching theme. Three subthemes highlighted other ways of knowing, being, and doing for nursing practice and life. Conclusion: Similar to other evidence supporting study-abroad experiences for nursing students, this opportunity for Northern Canadian nursing students in another circumpolar country offered professional and personal learning.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".