Landmark Articles From Volumes 31-40 / Des articles-jalons tirés des volumes 31 à 40 - Values That Matter, Barriers That Interfere: The Struggle of Canadian Nurses to Enact Their Values
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Qualitative interviews were conducted with 20 nurses in a Canadian city to explore the moral experience of nurses in their working lives. The participants were asked what they valued in their profession and how well their work lives enabled them act on their values. Almost uniformly, they expressed commitment to the values of helping others, caring, making a difference, patient-centredness, advocacy, professional integrity, holistic care, and sharing knowledge for patient empowerment. They identified several challenges and frustrations experienced in attempting to enact these values. System-level challenges included professional hierarchies, organizational structures, issues in the health-care system, and power dynamics. Removing these barriers cannot be left to nurses alone. It requires complex, wide-ranging strategies: system change, power restructuring, and the creation of ethical climates and cultures that support values that are essential to good patient care.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.013 |
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".