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
PURPOSE: To document and describe the experiences of immigrant nurses of colour who have filed grievances concerning their employers' discriminatory practices; and to solicit their views of existing policies and recommendations for equity in professional life. DESIGN AND METHODS: In this descriptive, exploratory study nine immigrant nurses of colour in Ontario, Canada, were interviewed between 1997 and 1998. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews and in focus groups. The discourse theory and methods of van Dijk and Essed were used to analyse the qualitative data. FINDINGS: Recurring themes were: (a) being marginalized and acknowledging and naming the racist experiences; (b) experiencing physical stress and emotional pain; (c) strategizing to cope and survive; (d) recommending policy changes. CONCLUSIONS: All nurses interviewed had experienced reprisals as a result of complaining or filing grievances and unfairness was encountered in the redress process itself. Participants recommended policy initiatives to ensure equity and fair practices in the nursing profession.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it