Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nursing students experience stress as they progress through their programs of study because they must fulfill numerous theoretical and clinical requirements. Stress describes a dynamic relationship between a person and their surroundings. It is a widespread phenomena of contemporary life styles; it has been discovered to have negative health effects and to adversely impair students’ learning, and it is recognized as one of the most significant problems in the contemporary world. AIM/OBJECTIVE: The goal of the current study was to identify the sources of stress among undergraduate nursing students and to explore their coping methods.  DESIGN: a qualitative descriptive methodology. METHOD: 20 semi-structured interviews were conducted individually in the English language by the principal researcher at female nursing college. The initial section of the interview consisted of a document listing the participants’ age and level. Questions derived from theoretical model were used in the interview’s second section to identify the sources of stress among undergraduate nursing students and to explore their coping methods. The qualitative data was analyzed using thematic analysis based on the Braun and Clarke framework. RESULTS: four global themes were emerged as the following: stressors, stress symptoms, coping strategies, and educational environment. The first 3 themes were derived deductively from the study theoretical model; whereas, the last theme was derived inductively from the data itself. CONCLUSION: management of the stress becomes critical. Coping strategies have been found to be effective in lowering the stress among nursing students.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".