Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of work engagement has existed in business and psychology literature for some time. There is a significant body of research that positively correlates work engagement with organizational outcomes. To date, the interest in the work engagement of nurses has primarily been related to these organizational outcomes. However, the value of work engagement in nursing practice is not only an issue of organizational interest, but of ethical interest. The dialogue on work engagement in nursing must expand to include the ethical importance of engagement. The relational nature of work engagement and the multiple levels of influence on nurses' work engagement make a relational ethics approach to work engagement in nursing appropriate and necessary. Within a relational ethics perspective, it is evident that work engagement enables nurses to have meaningful relationships in their work and subsequently deliver ethical care. In this article, I argue that work engagement is essential for ethical nursing practice. If engagement is essential for ethical nursing practice, the environmental and organizational factors that influence work engagement must be closely examined to pursue the creation of moral communities within healthcare environments.
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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".