MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087065627 · doi:10.1097/ans.0000000000000322

Constraints, Normative Ideal, and Actions to Foster Change in the Practice of Nursing

2020· article· en· W3087065627 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Martin, Louise Bouchard

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Nursing Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativeNursing practiceNursingIdeal (ethics)AuthoritarianismNonprobability samplingResistance (ecology)Power (physics)PsychologyQualitative researchDemocracyMedicineSociologyPolitical sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to explore the lived experiences of politically engaged hospital staff nurses, the way in which they would like to practice, as well as the ideas and actions they have undertaken to foster change in their nursing practice. A qualitative design was used to collect data from a purposive sample of 39 nurses. Results indicate a deprofessionalization of nursing and a drift toward authoritarianism. There are, nonetheless, nurses who employ acts of resistance with the aim of establishing new power relations. It appears that those actions must focus on the radical renewal of democracy in hospitals.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.680

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Nursing ScienceSame topicNursing Education, Practice, and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207