The concept of hope in nursing 4: hope and gerontological nursing
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
This article is the fourth in a series of six that explores the nature of hope, reviews the existing theoretical and empirical work in several discrete areas of nursing and provides case studies to illustrate the role that hope plays in clinical situations. This article focuses on hope within the specialty of gerontological nursing. To date, most of the hope research, using qualitative and quantitative methodologies, has focused on well and chronically ill young or middle-aged adults; very few studies have examined hope in the older adult and specifically how older adults maintain hope in spite of multiple losses and/or changes. Hope has been studied in several elderly populations, including grieving widow(er)s, community-based older persons, persons living in long term care facilities and elders recruited from senior citizen centres. Research findings provide initial direction for the assessment of hope, and a reference for evaluating the effectiveness of these strategies. There remains, however, a need for continuing research in the area of hope in the older adult that is multifaceted and applicable to both practice and education.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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