An examination of envy and jealousy in nursing academia
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
AIM: To discuss envy and jealousy and how their positive and negative aspects among nurse academics affect the workplace. BACKGROUND: In nursing academia, jealousy and envy are common emotions, engendered by demands for high productivity, intense competition for limited resources, preferences for particular assignments and opportunities for promotions. When these feelings are moderate and part of everyday rivalry, competition and ambition benefit the organisation. However, jealousy and envy can have serious consequences including damaged relationships and communication, and the undermining of colleagues' performance. DISCUSSION: Strategies are recommended to provide opportunities for self-reflection and consideration of how the workplace affects nursing academics' wellbeing and professional performance. CONCLUSION: Jealousy and envy can be damaging emotions in the workplace. The embittered, hostile person can undermine and damage relationships, disrupt teams and communication, and undermine organisational performance. Discussing the positive and negative effects of envy and jealousy provides an opportunity for nursing academics to self-reflect and to consider others and their own personal and professional performance. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Understanding how jealousy and envy impact on the work environment, workplace relationships and individual/team performance is important especially for early career and seasoned nursing academics alike.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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