MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Changing nurses’ dis‐empowering relationship patterns

2004· article· en· W2164996872 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisNursingDisciplineFocus groupRestructuringContext (archaeology)PsychologyExploratory researchHealth careOppressionFieldnotesQualitative researchMedicineSociologyEthnography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Nurses' inter- and intra-disciplinary relationships are frequently interpreted as oppressed group behaviours, contributing to their relatively dis-empowered status. In the context of restructuring in health care, this study examined the views of hospital staff nurses about their relationships with nursing colleagues and other health care professionals and their ideas for change. AIM: The aim of this paper is to report a study to add the views of staff nurses to the discourse on restructuring and to make visible the processes that contribute to their marginalization. DESIGN: The study was descriptive and exploratory. Staff nurses from various hospitals in a large Canadian city were selected by theoretical sampling. METHOD: Twenty volunteer staff nurses were interviewed between 1998 and 1999, using broad, open-ended questions and prompts to explore nurses' various relationships in the health care system. This approach allowed for multiple responses and expansions of ideas, without losing focus. The interviews were audio-taped and later transcribed. Thematic analysis was carried out. FINDINGS: Many participants were aware of inter-disciplinary hierarchies, particularly between nurses and physicians. Many also showed insights into their own intra-disciplinary hierarchies and mutual non-supportiveness. Both types of relationships were found to be inextricably linked, sustaining nurses' oppression through dis-empowering discourses. Nurses expressed many ideas about how to promote mutually supportive relationships. CONCLUSION: Change for the better needs to come from within the nursing profession. To develop effective strategies, bedside nurses have to be included in decision-making processes affecting them and their practice, about which they are the experts. Mutual respect, awareness-raising through education, development of caring nursing communities, mentorship and non-hierarchical leadership are key to stopping dis-empowering discourses and practices amongst 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.695

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.323 · 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