Nurses - Workforce Commodity, or Autonomous Professionals: What Nurses Know about their Value, Working Conditions, Impacts on Patient Care, and Nursing Practice Concerns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current focus on the critical shortage of nurses puts nurses at risk for representation as a health workforce commodity, rather than being recognized as an autonomous, knowledge-based profession without which the health of Canada’s population is in jeopardy. Nurses’ knowledge and professional role includes evaluation of their career, working conditions, and impact on patients and populations of care. The concern that nurses are leaving the profession can be analyzed within a feminist perspective related to autonomy and advocacy. The focus of this reflective commentary is to highlight, at a personal and collective level, that nurses are witnesses to the conditions fueling nursing shortages, the impact on the practice environment and the structural factors influencing these areas. We are therefore compelled to articulate the seriousness of our concerns and assert our knowledge and value as a profession.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".