MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158783757 · doi:10.1177/0894318409332781

The Substantive Theory of Surviving on the Margin of a Profession

2009· article· en· W2158783757 on OpenAlexaffabout
Josephine Etowa, Sarla Sethi, Roxie Thompson-Isherwood

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Science Quarterly · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrivingGrounded theoryMargin (machine learning)Diversity (politics)Critical theoryRacismSociologyPsychologyGender studiesPolitical scienceComputer scienceQualitative researchLawSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using the grounded theory method, a substantive theory of surviving on the margin of a profession emerged as the core variable that explains the patterns of behavior of black nurses in Canada. Data were collected through audiotaped in-depth interviews of 20 black nurses. The three phases of this theory are realizing, surviving, and thriving and the three critical transitions points are the center, the margin, and the proving ground. The phases and transitions points, as well as the conditions that influence variations in the theory are the focus of this paper. These conditions include racism, diversity, and worklife issues such as healthy workplaces.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.039
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.394 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing Science QuarterlySame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207