Situating moral distress within relational ethics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nurses may, and often do, experience moral distress in their careers. This is related to the complicated work environment and the complex nature of ethical situations in everyday nursing practice. The outcomes of moral distress may include psychological and physical symptoms, reduced job satisfaction and even inadequate or inappropriate nursing care. Moral distress can also impact retention of nurses. Although research has grown considerably over the past few decades, there is still a great deal about this topic that we do not know including how to deal well with moral distress. A critical key step is to develop a deeper understanding of relational practice as it pertains to moral distress. In this article, exploration of the experience of moral distress among nurses is guided by the key elements of relational ethics. This ethical approach was chosen because it recognizes that ethical practice is situated in relationships and it acknowledges the importance of the broader environment on influencing ethical action. The findings from this theoretical exploration will provide a theoretical foundation upon which to advance our knowledge about moral distress.
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.
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 | 0.025 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.055 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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 it