Conscientious Objection: A Call to Nursing Leadership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we argue that nurse leaders need to work actively to create morally supportive environments for nurses in Canada that provide adequate room to exercise conscientious objection. Morally supportive environments engender a safe atmosphere to engage in open dialogue and action regarding conflict of conscience. The CNA's 2008 Code of Ethics for Registered Nurses has recognized the importance of conscientious objection in nursing and has created key guidelines for the registered nurse to follow when a conflict in conscience is being considered or declared. Nurse leaders need to further develop the understanding of conflicts of conscience through education, well-written guidelines for conscientious objection in workplaces and engagement in research to uncover underlying barriers to the enactment of conscientious objections. With advancements in technology, changing healthcare policies and increasing scope of practice, both reflection and dialogue on conscientious objection are critical for the continuing moral development of nurses in Canada.
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 | 0.067 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.123 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.050 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".