Work Life Balance Among Nurse Educators Towards Quality Life: A Mixed Method Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Work-Life balance is completely an imminent problem that needs to be addressed across all organizations. The nursing field, especially nurses in the Academe is not excused due to multiple roles they are facing. This study was intended to determine and explore the work life balance among nurse educators towards quality life. The respondents of the study were the nurse educators of the Schools of Nursing in the city Baguio and the province of Benguet, Philippines. The research utilized Mixed Method design specifically, sequential explanatory strategy. It was found out that work-life balance of nurse educators vary and that nurse educators can maintain their composure in their work with or without interference with personal life or vice versa despite their very complex roles. Further exploring the verbatim accounts of the participants, the researchers extracted participants’ significant statements and organized into themes. Three main themes surfaced as similar among the participants: Time scheduling, demarcation of work and life and multitasking. It is recommended therefore that nurse educators should maintain their composure towards quality work and life despite their complex roles. To do this, they should put demarcation or boundary in their work and personal life.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".