Nursing Professionals within the Intergenerational Context during the 20th and 21st Centuries: an Integrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the generational differences and similarities existing among nursing professionals of the 20th and 21st centuries and how these have influenced on the evolution of the profession. METHODS: Integrative review according to the methodology by Whittemore and Knafl. The key words used for the search were: nurses, intergenerational relations, Veterans, Baby Boom, X generation, and Millennials. RESULTS: The electronic search process yielded 10 documents (eight articles and two theses), all within the Anglo-Saxon environment (4 in Canada, 5 in the United States, and 1 in Australia). The documents recovered determined three principal themes: the intergenerational nursing workforce (n = 7), recruiting and retention within an intergenerational workforce (n = 2), and tutoring within an intergenerational nursing workforce (n = 1). The four generations of nursing professionals (X, Y, Baby Boomers, and Veterans) have different aptitudes, social and cultural setting, that coexist within the same work staff. CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes the legitimacy of the intergenerational differences as an important variable of social categorization. The findings have the potential to improve generational comprehension and promote a more cohesive culture in clinical practice settings, besides conserving the legacy of the four generations of nursing professionals contributing to outline the identity of the nurses through the conservation of social, cultural, and professional experiences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".