MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949979438 · doi:10.17063/bjfs8(3)y2019139

Perceptions of Moral Distress among Nursing Students in Relation to Organ Donation

2019· article· en· W2949979438 on OpenAlexaff
João Paulo Victorino, Donna M. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueBrazilian Journal of Forensic Science Medical Law and Bioethics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrgan donationEconomic shortageDistressNursingPsychologyPerceptionTransplantationMedical educationMedicineClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This was a pilot study as it used a newly devised survey tool to determine the views and attitudes of undergraduate nursing students to the shortage of organs for transplantation purposes, with this survey also gaining insight into any possible moral distress. The survey tool was distributed to 134 undergraduate nursing students who attended a mandatory nursing research course, with 104 (77.6%) participating. The data were analyzed through content analysis, with three main themes identified: right to life, impact on others, and emotions. A high level of moral distress among the participants were identified, which confirm the necessity of future studies on this topic.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.414 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrazilian Journal of Forensic Science Medical Law and BioethicsSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207