Concpets of culture, diversity and cultural care among undergraduate nursing students : a nursing education perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Culture, diversity and cultural care have become important concepts for nurses \nprofessionals. However, little is known about how nursing students come to understand \nthese complex concepts. The purpose of this study was to explore what nursing students \nlearn and understand about diversity, culture and cultural encounters from a nursing \neducation perspective. A qualitative approach utilizing the focused ethnography method \nguided this research study. The study population was first and fourth year undergraduate \nnursing students enrolled in a Western Canadian university. Findings revealed that the \nmajority of first and fourth year students supported expanded essentialist views of \nculture. Although students demonstrated increased knowledge of nursing practice, the \noverall understanding of culture care changed very little between first and fourth year \nstudents. This study may be an important step to help nurses improve their understanding \nof culture, diversity and cultural care. Recommendations are provided for students, \neducators, program leaders and researchers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".