Migration: a concept analysis from a nursing perspective
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This article is a report of a concept analysis of nurse migration. BACKGROUND: International migration is increasing and nurse migrants are active participants in this movement. Migration is a complex term and can be examined from a range of perspectives. Analysis of nurse migration is needed to guide policy, practice and research. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was undertaken using electronic literature indexes, specific journals and websites, internet search engines and hand searches. No timeframe was placed on the search. Most literature found was published between 2001 and 2009. A sample of 80 documents met the inclusion criteria. METHOD: Walker and Avant's approach guided the analysis. DISCUSSION: Nurse migration can be defined by five attributes: the motivation and decisions of individuals; external barriers and facilitators; freedom of choice to migrate; freedom to migrate as a human right, and dynamic movement. Antecedents of migration include the political, social, economic, legal, historical and educational forces that comprise the push and pull framework. The consequences of migration are positive or negative depending on the viewpoint and its affect on the individual and other stakeholders such as the source country, destination country, healthcare systems and the nursing profession. CONCLUSION: This concept analysis clarified the complexities surrounding nurse migration. A nursing-specific middle-range theory was proposed to guide the understanding and study of nurse migration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it