Rationing nurses: Realities, practicalities, and nursing leadership theories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we examine the practicalities of nurse managers' work. We expose how managers' commitments to transformational leadership are undermined by the rationing practices and informatics of hospital reform underpinned by the ideas of new public management. Using institutional ethnography, we gathered data in a Canadian hospital. We began by interviewing and observing frontline leaders, nurse managers, and expanded our inquiry to include interviews with other nurses, staffing clerks, and administrators whose work intersected with that of nurse managers. We learned how nurse managers' responsibility for staffing is accomplished within tightening budgets and a burgeoning suite of technologies that direct decisions about whether or not there are enough nurses. Our inquiry explicates how technologies organize nurse managers to put aside their professional knowledge. We describe professionally committed nurse leaders attempting to activate transformational leadership and show how their intentions are subsumed within information systems. Seen in light of our analysis, transformational leadership is an idealized concept within which managers' responsibilities are shaped to conform to institutional purposes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".