MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899050923 · doi:10.18192/aporia.v10i2.4122

Cultural differences in General and Psychiatric Nurses: A critical analysis using Social Identity Theory

2019· article· en· W2899050923 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Phil Coleman

Bibliographic record

VenueAporia · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Competency in Health Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentity (music)Affect (linguistics)Social identity theoryPsychologyPower (physics)Representation (politics)Mental healthCultural identitySocial psychologySocial groupPsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores cultural identity within General (Adult) and Psychiatric (Mental Health) nursing as reflected in healthcare literature; illustrating how significant cultural differences associated with the history of the disciplines, representation of their fields of practice, professional knowledge, power, status, gender and employment rights affect interdisciplinary communication and working relationships. Applying Social Identity Theory (SIT), it argues that psychiatric nursing is a low status group compared to general nursing and highlights actions, congruent with SIT, which can be regarded as attempts to enhance the status of this discipline; so far with very limited success.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.367 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAporiaSame topicCultural Competency in Health CareFrench-language works237,207