Recruitment and retention of Canadian undergraduate psychiatric nursing faculty: challenges and recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accessible summary • Adverse public attitudes and stigma associated with the psychiatric population and their professional mental health providers can directly impact career choices among prospective nurse educators. • Geographical restrictions and the limited development and recognition of psychiatric nursing may hinder the recruitment of prospective nurse educators. • A coalition between the Canadian Nurses Association and the Registered Psychiatric Nurses of Canada may assist recruitment efforts. • The tenure and promotion process becomes particularly important for junior faculty within psychiatric nursing programmes. The education of psychiatric nurses in Canada has gradually evolved since its inception early in the 20th century. The most obvious advancement has been a move away from institutionally based training to undergraduate university preparation. Associated with this advancement is the ongoing challenge of recruiting and retaining qualified nurse educators. This essay addresses external factors (e.g. title disparity, association affiliation, societal perception of psychiatric nursing and professional identity) and internal factors (e.g. career transition and tenure and promotion) that influence faculty recruitment and retention. Existing challenges and recommendations designed to enhance recruitment and retention efforts are outlined.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".