Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To report an analysis of the concept of nurses' workplace social capital. BACKGROUND: Workplace social capital is an emerging concept in nursing with potential to illuminate the value of social relationships at work. A common definition is needed. DESIGN: Concept analysis. DATA SOURCES: The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PubMed, PsychINFO and ProQuest Nursing. REVIEW METHODS: Databases were systematically searched using the keywords: workplace social capital, employee social capital, work environment, social capital and nursing. Sources published between January 1937-November 2012 in English that described or studied social capital of nurses at work were included. A total of 668 resources were found. After removing 241 duplicates, literature was screened in two phases: (1) titles and abstracts were reviewed (n = 427); and (2) remaining data sources were retrieved and read (n = 70). Eight sources were included in the final analysis. RESULTS: Attributes of nurses' workplace social capital included networks of social relationships at work, shared assets and shared ways of knowing and being. Antecedents were communication, trust and positive leadership practices. Nurses' workplace social capital was associated with positive consequences for nurses, their patients and healthcare organizations. CONCLUSION: Nurses' workplace social capital is defined as nurses' shared assets and ways of being and knowing that are evident in, and available through, nurses' networks of social relationships at work. Future studies should examine and test relationships between antecedents and consequences of nurses' workplace social capital to understand this important aspect of healthy professional practice environments better.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 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".