Perceptions of Professionalism Among Nursing Faculty and Nursing Students
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there is no consensus about the definition of professionalism, some generally recognized descriptors include knowledge, specialization, intellectual and individual responsibility, and well-developed group consciousness. In this study, Q-methodology was used to identify common viewpoints about professionalism held by nursing faculty and students, and four viewpoints emerged as humanists, portrayers, facilitators, and regulators. The humanists reflected the view that professional values include respect for human dignity, personal integrity, protection of patient privacy, and protection of patients from harm. The portrayers believed that professionalism is evidenced by one's image, attire, and expression. For facilitators, professionalism not only involves standards and policies but also includes personal beliefs and values. The regulators believed that professionalism is fostered by a workplace in which suitable beliefs and standards are communicated, accepted, and implemented by its staff. The differences indicate that there may be numerous contextual variables that affect individuals' perceptions of professionalism.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it