Public Understanding of the Role of Nurses During Ebola
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine media portrayals of nurses and their roles during the 2014-2015 Ebola epidemic in western Africa. METHODS: The study used document analysis and in-depth content analysis to review and assess literature on the Ebola epidemic. A total of 234 potentially relevant articles were identified; 109 were excluded and 125 were included in the analysis. FINDINGS: The analysis revealed a gap in system preparedness for global health events and a lack of public awareness of the critical role of nurses. Little attention was paid to nurses and their knowledge and expertise as they worked through the Ebola event. The perception of nurses evolved over the epidemic. CONCLUSIONS: Portrayals of nurses and their work during the Ebola epidemic evolved over the epidemic, from positive to negative, and health systems were shown to be unprepared for a major epidemic. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Media coverage of major health events can demonstrate system inadequacies, but inaccurate and misleading portrayals of nurses and the nursing profession can undermine and diminish the image of the nursing profession.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".