MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2404480310

Employed to go against one's values: nurse managers' accounts of ethical conflict with their organizations.

2002· article· en· W2404480310 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alice Gaudine, Marilyn R Beaton

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingAdministration (probate law)Qualitative researchPsychologyRole conflictEthical issuesNurse AdministratorDescriptive researchEthical valuesPublic relationsMedicineSocial psychologySociologyPolitical scienceMEDLINEEngineering ethicsLawSocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This qualitative descriptive study examined ethical conflict in the workplace as experienced by nurse managers. Using semi-structured interviews, 15 nurse managers employed by 7 hospitals in 1 province in eastern Canada were interviewed. Four themes of ethical conflict were identified in the data: voicelessness, "where to spend the money," the rights of the individual versus the needs of the organization, and unjust practices on the part of senior administration and/or the organization. The authors identify factors that mitigated or worsened the ethical conflict, as well as the outcomes for the nurse managers. They also discuss the implications for nurses, hospitals, and future research.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207