THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OCCUPATIONAL STRESSORS AND COPING STRATEGIES IN NURSING TECHNICIANS
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
ABSTRACT This is a quantitative, descriptive and exploratory research, with cross-sectional design that investigated the stressors experienced by nursing technicians working in general hospital and identified the coping strategies most used by them. The sample contained 310 participants. A sociodemographic questionnaire and the Ways of Coping Scale were used. For the analysis we used descriptive statistics and calculated the Cronbach's alpha. 60% of professionals used the strategies focused on the problem; 57.4% attributed their stress to working conditions, 26.8% to relationships in the workplace, 5.5% to the lack of reward at work and only 0.6% to problems personal. We conclude that strategies focused on the problems were the most used, indicating an approximation of the stressor in order to fix it. The identified stressors indicate the need for planning, stimulating and recognizing nursing professionals.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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