A Descriptive Analysis of the Impact of Moral Distress on the Evaluation of Unsatisfactory Nursing Students
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
BACKGROUND: Nurse educators assume a difficult role when evaluating unsatisfactory students, including those at risk for failure in clinical and classroom settings. While the decisional dilemma inherent in evaluating unsatisfactory students has been well documented in literature, little is known about how moral distress impacts the nurse educators' decisions regarding whether to pass or to fail unsatisfactory students. PURPOSE: This article aims to provide a descriptive analysis of the moral dilemmas and the potential impact of moral distress experienced by nurse educators when evaluating the performance of unsatisfactory students in clinical and classroom courses. METHODS: Nathaniel's theory of moral reckoning guided the descriptive analysis of six studies to understand how nurse educators work through moral dilemmas, make decisions, and provide justification for their decisions when evaluating the performance of unsatisfactory students. FINDINGS: Nathaniel's theory has been shown to be helpful in discussing the dilemma of evaluating unsatisfactory students, and it is a suitable framework for nurse educators in working through their dilemmas as a form of structured reflection. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The outcomes of this descriptive analysis highlight the need for educational administrators to provide support to undergraduate nurse educators experiencing moral distress in this type of situation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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