MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Gender Perspective on Conflict Management Strategies of Nurses

2001· review· en· W2053088625 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Scholarship · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict Management and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Construct (python library)Conflict managementPsychologyNursing managementNursingMedicineSociologyComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To apply a gender perspective to synthesis of research findings on conflict management. ORGANIZING CONSTRUCT: The Thomas-Kilmann Mode Instrument (TKI), for measuring five conflict-handling strategies: avoiding, compromising, collaborating, accommodating, and competing. METHOD: Nursing research studies with the TKI and other studies are synthesized from perspectives in three gender theories. CONCLUSIONS: Findings were that two conflict management strategies, avoiding and compromising, were used predominantly by all categories of nurses. Possible reasons for over- and underuse of the remaining three strategies (collaborating, accommodating, competing) are described. Implications of these findings for nurses and nursing organizations are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.255
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.239 · 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