Choosing nursing as a career: a narrative analysis of millennial nurses' career choice of virtue
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
The growth and sustainability of the nursing profession depends on the ability to recruit and retain the upcoming generation of professionals. Understanding the career choice experiences and professional expectations of Millennial nurses (born 1980 or after) is a critical component of recruitment and retention strategies. This study utilized Polkinghorne's interpretive, narrative approach to understand how Millennial nurses explain, account for and make sense of their choice of nursing as a career. The positioning of nursing as a virtuous choice was both temporally and contextually influenced. The decision to enter the profession was initially emplotted around a traditional understanding of nursing as a virtuous profession: altruistic, noble, caring and compassionate. The centricity of virtues depicts one-dimensional understanding of the nursing profession that alone could prove dissatisfying to a generation of professionals who have many career choices available to them. The narratives reveal how participants' perceptions and expectations remain influenced by a stereotypical understanding of nursing, an image that remains prevalent in society and which holds implications for the future recruitment, socialization and retention strategies for upcoming and future generations of nurses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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