MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414240203 · doi:10.22329/cjpp.v3i1.8169

Moral Agency, Bureaucracy & Nurses: A Qualitative Study

2023· article· en· W4414240203 on OpenAlexaffabout
Élisabeth Fortier, David Cruise Malloy

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Practical Philosophy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)Moral agencyMoral disengagementHierarchyQualitative researchBureaucracyHealth careQuality (philosophy)Distress

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research explores moral agency among a group of nurses in an urban hospital located in a Western Canadian province. For this study, six Nurses were recruited and their stories describe various limitations within the culture of the healthcare system appears to constrict moral agency and possibly lead to moral distress among nurses. Moral agency seems to be influenced by hierarchy and taking initiatives, time/workload, and the “politics of healthcare”. Nurses also shared experiences of resiliency in facing moral dilemmas in the nursing profession. In conclusion, nurses appear to juggle conflicting priorities between providing quality care to patients and being efficient in the health system. As suggested by previous research, this climate leads to moral distress and may negatively influence the wellbeing of nurses in the care they provide to patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0280.019
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.395
GPT teacher head0.602
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Practical PhilosophySame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207