MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Demands of immigration among nurses from Canada and the Philippines

2008· article· en· W2023228812 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Linda A Victorino Beechinor, Joyce J. Fitzpatrick

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Nursing Practice · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationNursingEconomic shortageDistressScale (ratio)Work (physics)PopulationMedicinePsychologyPolitical scienceGeographyEnvironmental healthGovernment (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to describe and compare the demands of immigration on nurses from Canada and those from the Philippines, who immigrate to the USA and work in Hawaii. The findings can assist policy-makers in formulating plans to alleviate the shortage of nurses through effective immigration recruitment practices. Nurse educators can gain support for the recruitment of students from a diverse array of cultures. Managers and nursing leaders can use this information in designing recruitment, orientation, support and retention programmes for nurses that are specific to their cultural needs. The two groups of nurses were sampled from acute care staff nurse populations in Hawaii. Aroian's instrument, the Demands of Immigration scale, was used to measure and compare the distress levels of the nurses. The findings include a higher level of distress experienced by nurses from Canada compared with nurses from the Philippines. This might be attributed to a preponderance of social and collegial support available to the Philippine nurses in Hawaii where one-fourth of the population is derived from their country of origin.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.402 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Nursing PracticeSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207