An Occupational Health Nursing Education Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A collaborative effort between community health faculty in an upper division nursing program and nurses from a nearby agricultural health and research center resulted in an educational program focused on occupational health and safety issues in the agricultural industry. The 3 hour class was presented each semester between 1997 and 1999 to RN students enrolled in a community health organization class. In addition to information about the health and safety hazards in agriculture, the nursing students learned about the center's research projects and clinical services available to the farming community. A follow up survey was mailed to the nursing students to evaluate the effectiveness and relevance of the occupational health program by identifying the proportion of the nurses' caseloads spent on occupational health problems, and whether the information and materials presented in the class were relevant to practice. Results showed that even though the surveyed nurses were employed in nonoccupational practice settings, nearly everyone rated the occupational health information as useful. Findings also revealed that although nurses in nonoccupational practice can spend nearly a quarter of their time caring for clients with work related health problems, they may lack adequate educational preparation to do so.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.090 | 0.015 |
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".