Voices That Care: Licensed Practical Nurses and the Emotional Labour Underpinning Their Collaborative Interactions with Registered Nurses
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
Recognizing the emotional labour underlying interprofessional collaborations (IPCs) could be considered a crucial step towards building a cohesive nursing team. Although IPCs between registered nurses (RNs) and licensed practical nurses (LPNs) have been linked to quality nursing care, little is known about the emotions experienced by LPNs during their interactions with RNs or those factors that influence IPCs. A questionnaire administered to 309 LPNs found that (1) the professional identity of LPNs has evolved into a that of a unique social group; (2) LPNs define IPC as an interpersonal process of exploring similar or dissimilar assessments of a patient's status with RNs and, together, establishing a course of nursing actions; (3) the primary organizational factor facilitating IPCs is inclusive nursing leadership; (4) the interpersonal factor promoting IPCs is the level of trust RNs extend to LPNs; and (5) an LPN's emotional labour (i.e., internal emotional regulation) is most tangible during uncollaborative interactions with RNs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it