Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this paper is to examine the concept of conflict in nursing work environments using the evolutionary approach to concept analysis. BACKGROUND: In nursing work environments, conflict among nurses is becoming a significant issue resulting in job dissatisfaction, absenteeism, and turnover. Although discussed frequently in the nursing literature, nursing research has focused predominantly on conflict management without first understanding the elements, causes and effects of conflict. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using CINAHL, Proquest, PsychINFO, Social Sciences Index and MEDLINE databases and the keywords conflict and work environment. Articles over the last 25 years from each of these databases were examined to identify major themes, areas of agreement and disagreement across disciplines, changes in the concept over time, and emerging trends. FINDINGS: Conflict is a multidimensional construct with both detrimental and beneficial effects. Most definitions agree that conflict is a process involving two or more people, where a person perceives the opposition of the other. Antecedents stem from individual characteristics, interpersonal factors, and organizational factors. Individual effects, interpersonal relationships, and organizational effects are the main consequences of conflict. A theoretical model of the antecedents and consequences is presented, with implications for further development. CONCLUSIONS: A more thorough understanding of the sources and outcomes of conflict within nursing work environments would enable the prevention of conflict. If properly understood and managed, conflict can also lead to positive outcomes for nurses and healthcare organizations.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".