Support for Learning in the Clinical Area: The Experiences of Post-registration Student Midwives.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior to 2006 Irish midwifery education was available only in the form of postgraduate inhospital training to registered nurses.Since 2006 midwifery education continues to be offered as a postgraduate course but it is also available as a direct entry undergraduate programme in a number of Irish third level institutions.In line with these changes in Irish midwifery education, the National Council for the Professional Development of Nursing and Midwifery (2005) identified, among other priorities, the need to provide educational support for student midwives in the clinical area because acquisition of fundamental skills will facilitate their smooth and sound transition into the workforce given that they will be the future functioning midwives.This study explores postgraduate post registration student midwives' experiences of learning support in the clinical area.A qualitative phenomenological approach was used.The students were registered in one of the Schools of Midwifery in an Irish third level institution.A purposive sample of six student midwives participated in individual face-to-face tape-recorded interviews to discuss their experiences.Data analysis revealed six major themes that represent student midwives' experiences of support for learning in the clinical setting -lack of support, learning environment, employee status, support strategies, ways of learning, and theory-practice integration.During the clinical learning process participants felt abandoned by the more senior staff while the senior students and the newly qualified midwives were supportive.
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 | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".