MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7000328935

EXPLORING PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE PRECEPTORS ’ EXPERIENCE OF LEARNING

2011· article· en· W7000328935 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExperiential learningPublic healthExperiential knowledgeQualitative researchPhenomenology (philosophy)Meaning (existential)Public health nursingTacit knowledgePreceptor
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exploring Public Health Nurse Preceptors’ Experience of Learning\nThe preceptorship model is the leading approach to clinical teaching in undergraduate nursing programs. There is a need for community placements however a lack of preceptors. In preceptor-student relationships experienced nurses learn along with the students. This qualitative study utilized hermeneutic phenomenology to answer the questions: How do public health nurse preceptors experience learning within a preceptor-student relationship? What is the meaning of learning for public health nurse preceptors Seven public health nurse preceptors were recruited from health units in Ontario. Findings from this study reveal the tacit knowledge within experienced nurse preceptors. Preceptors learned from their preceptee, explored similarities and differences and were challenged by uncertainties in their practice. Preceptors experienced tensions between holding on and letting go, between work and home life, and within the ‘swamp’ of practice. This study reveals the experiential tacit knowledge, practical wisdom, reciprocal learning and professional development of nurses within preceptorships.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.350
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.010 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)Same topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207