Exploring Nurses' Perceptions of Organizational Factors of Collaborative Relationships
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
Collaborative relationships are influenced by the context of the organization in which health professionals work. There is limited knowledge concerning the influence that organizational factors have on this process. A descriptive study design using semistructured interviews was used to explore nurses' perceptions of the organizational factors that influence the development of collaborative relationships in health care teams. Eight nurses from a university-affiliated teaching hospital in Montreal participated in this study. Nurses described a variety of experiences where effective collaboration took place. One common theme emerged from the participants: Being Available for Collaboration. Nurses perceived that 2 particular organizational factors-time and workday scheduling-influenced the development of collaborative relationships. This study supports the need for health care managers to promote and invest in alternative means of communication technology and to structure clinical care environments to help promote the development of collaborative relationships within health care teams.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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