Korean nurses' perceptions of ethical problems: Toward a new code of ethics for nursing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Nursing Philosophy, Theory, History and Ethics Interest Group of the Alpha Lambda Chapter of Sigma Theta Tau in Seoul undertook a study of Korean nurses' perceptions of ethical problems in nursing practice, administration, education and research in 1993. The purposes of the study were to develop the ethical concerns of Korean nurses and to make suggestions for contents and guidelines for a new code. The data consisted of 329 descriptive items of ethical problems summarized into 221 descriptions and 57 nurses responded. To meet the study objectives, we analyzed the data according to content themes, comparing these data with the code of the Korean Nurses' Association (KNA), to the codes of the Canadian Nurses' Association and the College of Nurses of Ontario. In conclusion, the result showed that a new KNA code needs to include guidelines at different levels of abstractness, including standards at a concrete level reflecting the ethical problems faced by nurses in practice, administration, education, and research.
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 | 0.069 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 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".