Nursing Professional Practice Environments
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
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the impact of nurses' perceived professional practice environment on their quality of nursing conflict management approaches and ultimately their perceptions of unit effectiveness from the perspective of Deutsch's theory of constructive conflict management. BACKGROUND: Rising reports of hostility and conflict among Canadian nurses are a concern to nurses' health and the viability of effective patient care delivery. However, research on the situational factors that influence nurses' ability to apply effective conflict resolution skills that lead to positive results in practice is limited. METHODS: A nonexperimental, predictive design was used in a sample of 678 registered nurses working in community hospitals within a large metropolitan area in Ontario. RESULTS: The results supported a modified version of the hypothesized model [chi2(1) = 16.25, Goodness of Fit = 0.99, Comparative Fit Index = 0.98, Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation = 0.15] linking professional practice environment and core self-evaluation to nurses' conflict management and, ultimately, unit effectiveness. Professional practice environment, conflict management, and core-self evaluation explained approximately 46.6% of the variance in unit effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Positive professional practice environments and high core self-evaluations predicted nurses' constructive conflict management and, in turn, greater unit effectiveness.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it