Push and Pull Factors in International Nurse Migration
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
PURPOSE: To describe the push and pull factors of migration in relation to international recruitment and migration of nurses. ORGANIZING CONSTRUCT: Review of literature on nurse migration, examination of effects of donor and receiving countries, and discussion of ethical concerns related to foreign nurse recruitment. FINDINGS: The primary donor countries are Australia, Canada, the Philippines, South Africa, and the United Kingdom (UK); the primary receiving countries are Australia, Canada, Ireland, the UK, and the United States (US). The effects of migration on donor countries include the loss of skilled personnel and economic investment; receiving countries receive skilled nurses to fill critical shortages with less economic investment. Ethical concerns include the potential for exploitation of foreign nurses. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses migrate to seek better wages and working conditions than they have in their native countries. Given the current conditions, developed countries continue to actively recruit foreign nurses to fill critical shortages. Migration is predicted to continue until developed countries address the underlying causes of nurse shortages and until developing countries address conditions that cause nurses to leave.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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