Relationship between faculty staff professionalism and nursing students’ values
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : The professional competencies of faculty staff are of great importance in shaping students’ values, skills and attitudes that directly affect subsequent patient care. Objectives: to assay the level of faculty staff professionalism through investigating the level of professional competencies of faculty staff and behavior via students’ perceptions, assessing nursing students’ values, and finding the relationship between faculty staff professionalism and nursing students’ values. Methods: A descriptive correlational study design was carried out on 186 of nursing students from four grades in the Faculty of Nursing, Port Said University, Egypt. A structured questionnaire was used to collect the data. Results: Faculty staff had a high level of competencies, including: personality and respectful professional relationships and communication (75.3%); planning and preparation, well-organized teaching methods (72.0%); Activities of monitoring and giving feedback (72.6%), Scientific and professional competence (68.3%); and Methods of motivation and enhancement (67.7%). About half of students (51.6%) perceived that their faculty staff behave positively to a high level. Prominent values among nursing students are mercy, honesty and patience. Statistically significant relations were found between total faculty staff behavior scores, total faculty staff competencies scores, and total students’ values scores, with statistically significant relations found for most items between faculty staff behaviors and competencies and students’ values. Conclusion: The present study found that values as mercy, honest and patience had a great influence by the faculty staff professional competencies and positive behavior. It is recommended to enhance the scientific and professional level of faculty staff by continuous training and scholarships. Faculty staff must pay attention to guide students toward positive behavior and stress the importance of personal and professional students’ values, reflected in their clinical nursing practice. h statistically significant relations found for most items between faculty staff behaviors and competencies and students’ values.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".