Informed Strangers: Witnessing and Responding to Unethical Care as Student Nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nursing students occupy a unique perspective in clinical settings because they are informed, through education, about how patient care ought to happen. Given the brevity of placements and their "visiting status" in clinical sites, students are less invested in the ethos of specific sites. Subsequently, their perspectives of quality care are informed by what should happen, which might differ from that of nurses and patients. The purpose of this study was to identify predominant themes in patient care, as experienced by students, and the influence that these observations have on the development of their ethical reasoning. Using a qualitative descriptive approach in which 27 nursing student papers and three follow-up in-depth interviews were analyzed, three main themes emerged: Good employee, poor nurse; damaged care; and negotiating the gap. The analysis of the ethical situations in these papers suggests that students sometimes observe care that lacks concern for the dignity, autonomy, and safety of patients. For these student nurses, this tension led to uncertainty about patient care and their eventual profession.
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 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 | 0.024 | 0.180 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".