MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Emotional labor and nursing: an under‐appreciated aspect of caring work

2001· review· en· W2121554843 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

VenueNursing Inquiry · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEmotional Labor in Professions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmotional laborExcellenceEmotion workWork (physics)PsychologyNursingRelevance (law)Theme (computing)Social psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes one component of the findings of a larger research study entitled 'Nurses' social construction of self: Implications for work with abused women'. One of the most consistent themes arising from that study involved nurses' views regarding the relevance of emotional engagement/detachment in pursuit of excellence in their practice. In this article this theme is examined in the light of work on emotional labor and the emotional work of nursing. Nurses' high degree of satisfaction in the emotional rewards of their work with clients is described and contrasted with their dissatisfaction in relation to nursing education and their views of the lack of valuing of nurses' work by others within the healthcare system. The importance of supporting them in relation to the emotional aspects of their work is explored.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.281 · 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