Why are you thriving when I'm barely surviving?: An exploration of personal resiliency factors that enable novice nurses to thrive
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite exposure to similar workplace stressors, some novice nurses manage to thrive while others experience high levels of emotional exhaustion and burnout. This qualitative research study of eight novice nurses from British Columbia, Canada explored the interplay of personal resiliency factors that enable nurses to thrive in their nursing roles. The study outcomes demonstrate that personal resiliency factors play a significant role in how the novice nurse participants interpreted workplace stimuli, either as challenges they felt confident to navigate, or as threatening stressors. The most prominent personal resiliency factors that impacted the novice nurses’ ability to thrive included congruence, self-compassion, self-efficacy, and the resulting ability to navigate workplace stressors. Personal resiliency impacts the ability to navigate the stressors endemic in many novice nurse work environments. Study results underscore the importance of resilience education for nurses in training and ongoing support as they cross the threshold into professional practice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".