Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to critique extant nursing research on nursing practice environments by juxtaposing it with critical sociological perspectives on nurses' work and to propose an alternative paradigm for future research based on these perspectives. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The extant nursing/health services research on nursing practice environments is reviewed. Sociological concepts are introduced, expanded on, and linked to the variables measured in the nursing literature. FINDINGS: The substantial body of nursing research about nurses' job satisfaction has been targeted to management concerns and has taken the positivistic perspective that is traditional in organizational research. However, attempts to address nurses' working situations using expedient solutions obscure any consideration of underlying influencers. Several well-developed sociological concepts pertaining to gender, knowledge, professionalization, and organizations have direct relevance for the study of nurses' work and can provide new perspectives for deeper questioning about nurses' work experiences. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Unprecedented organizational restructuring in health care has had a profound impact on the practice of nursing, prompting health system administrators and nursing researchers to study the consequences of system change and devise solutions. This paper presents a discussion of typically disconnected perspectives in the study of work (management and sociological) in order to reframe what is known about the factors influencing the quality of nurses' working lives and to provide a conceptual foundation for deeper and more critical research about nurses' work.
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 | 0.044 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.100 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| 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".