A Study of Nurses' Internal, External, and Social Images as Perceived by College Students in South Korea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study is a descriptive survey study aiming to examine the internal, external, and social images of nurses as perceived by Korean college students and clarifying the relationship between these images.METHODS: This study was performed using a structured questionnaire from May 2 to 14, 2016. Data were collected from 221 college students and were statistically interpreted using t-test, one-way ANOVA, and Pearson's correlation coefficient.RESULTS: The study results are as follows: First, the internal image of nurses was scored at 3.46 points, the external image at 2.78, and the social image at 2.76. Second, a significant positive correlation was found between the internal, external, and social images as well as between the external and social images, implying the importance of both internal and external images of nurses.CONCLUSION: The results of this study are expected to be used as a reference base for devising strategies and measures for the enhancement of internal, external, and social images of nurses for future healthcare consumers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; 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".