How can a social capital framework guide managers to develop positive nurse relationships and patient outcomes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To examine how social capital could be a mediating factor through which managers' leadership positively influences relationships with nurses and quality patient outcomes. BACKGROUND: The relationship between leadership, what managers do and optimal outcomes for patients are well established. What is not yet clear is an understanding about specific mechanisms by which managers' leadership builds social capital to foster cohesive team relationships and quality patient outcomes. KEY ISSUES: Conceptual links are drawn between human capital and leadership styles of managers. Social capital is introduced and contextualized through exemplars from a Canadian study. Exemplars illustrate how the presence or absence of social capital influenced nurses' productivity to deliver quality patient care. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse researchers could use the Social Capital Framework (SCF) to examine the mediating role of social capital in relationships between managers and nurses. These findings could inform managers' strategies to foster positive networks and norms between nurses to deliver quality patient care. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Leadership that uses a framework of social capital will enhance team relationships between nurses. Enhanced cohesion will have a positive impact on patient outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".