Healthy work environments in the perception of nursing professors and students
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
Introduction: Healthy work environments are positive for the construction and realization of professional identities. From the beginning of their vocational training, nursing students experience work environments in the area of health, accompanied by teaching nurses. Therefore, the object, the work environment, is important in the analysis of the work and teaching-learning process.Methods: Qualitative, descriptive and exploratory research. Developed in two Universities in Santa Catarina State, Brazil, with fourteen professors and fourteen students. Data were collected in a semi-structured interview with professors and focus groups with students, through a digital platform with previously scheduled times. The data were analyzed according to content analysis. The study was approved by a research ethics committee.Results: The findings were organized in the four dimensions that make up the World Health Organization's model of healthy work environments: the physical, psychosocial environment, resources for personal health and the institution's involvement in the community.Conclusions: Perceptions about healthy work environments are closely related to the conditions and requirements imposed to perform the work. Healthy work environments are the result of the infrastructure of institutions, work management and characteristics specially implicated in the teaching-learning process.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it