Correction to Chachula and Ahmad (2022).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
, 2022[Nov], Vol 14[8], 1333-1337). In the article, the values 7.6% and 1.2% were changed to 19.1% and 2.9%, respectively, in the following text in the second paragraph of the "Comparisons Pre-Pandemic and amid the Pandemic" section of the Results: "exploration of the frequencies revealed that fewer students reported high levels of CS during the pandemic (19.1%) than prior (24.7%) and 2.9% of students reported high levels of STS compared to 0% the year prior." In addition, the percentages listed in the "During Pandemic" section of Table 4 were incorrectly reported and have been amended. Nevertheless, the interpretation of the overall results remains unchanged. The online version of this article has been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2022-27230-001). OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the levels of stress, burnout, primary and secondary trauma, and self-efficacy before and during the novel coronavirus pandemic in a sample of baccalaureate nursing and psychiatric nursing students, a population which has seldom been studied regarding these factors. METHOD: The study used a nonexperimental, cross-sectional methodology at 2 time-points. Nursing and psychiatric nursing students enrolled at 1 western Canadian university were invited to participate in an online, anonymous survey in 2020 prior to the pandemic and in 2021 during Canada's third-wave. Survey measures included the Professional Quality of Life Scale (includes Compassion Satisfaction, Burnout, and Secondary Traumatic Stress), the Perceived Stress Scale, the Life Events Checklist to assess the amount of prior traumatic experiences, and the Core Self-Evaluations Scale. RESULTS: ≤ .001). CONCLUSION: This preliminary study is the first to reveal that students in the nursing field experienced more traumatic events during the pandemic than before. The findings imply that access to greater support for experiences of trauma may be needed to support undergraduate students entering the health care arena amid the novel coronavirus pandemic. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".