MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Student and Staff Relationships in a Clinical Practice Model: Impact on Learning

2000· article· en· W68216361 on OpenAlex
Lynda Atack, Margret Comacu, Renee Kenny, Nancy LaBelle, Debra Miller

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

VenueJournal of Nursing Education · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsCentennial College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocializationPerceptionPsychologyMedical educationNursingNursing staffMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This qualitative study describes the perspectives of diploma nursing students and staff nurses on the student-staff relationship and the impact this relationship has on student learning. Staff and students, working in a clinical practice model setting in a large urban hospital, participated in focused interviews following a 15-week clinical practice assignment. Findings revealed there were several commonalities in staff and student perceptions of the relationship. Both staff and students described role perception, staff characteristics, and the workplace environment as important factors influencing the relationship and student learning. Students also identified working in a collegial relationship as being important to learning and their socialization into the nursing profession.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.409 · 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