Exploring Ethical Perspectives of Nurses and Nurse Managers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With nursing shortages reaching crisis proportions, staff nurses need to believe that nurse managers are supportive. However, evidence exists that staff nurses view nurse managers as moving away from basic nursing values. Using an exploratory philosophical approach, the authors examine this issue as a function of differing ethical frameworks used by nurses and nurse managers. The main question is whether nurse managers are expected to subscribe to a corporate ethic versus a nursing ethic in making decisions, and whether these approaches are fundamentally different. The authors' supposition was that exposing differences might account for some dissatisfaction that nurses express with regard to nursing leadership. They conclude that there are differences of emphasis in ethical principles that may cause tension. Incongruencies between corporate and individual values emerge under fiscal constraints and with differing perceptions, expectations and decision-making criteria. This paper offers suggestions to help staff nurses and nurse managers reduce tensions experienced when difficult choices, particularly those of resource allocation, are required.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.041 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".