Editorial: risk and long‐term conditions – society, services and resilience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The eight papers in this special issue of the Journal of Nursing and Healthcare of Chronic Illness demonstrate how risk – and the flip side of the coin, resilience – mediate our experiences of relationships and society. It is an issue that is of increasing significance as health and social care services promote self-management of chronic disease and seek to reduce people's vulnerability. Professional practice is profoundly shaped by the way in which policy and services engage with risk construction and management. However, it is a large and very diverse body of theory and research, and can lead to some of the major ethical challenges faced by practitioners and by people with long-term conditions. These dynamics of theory, policy and practice have a profound influence on the experiences of people, and demand further analysis if we are to better enable people to live positively with a long-term condition.
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 | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.014 |
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".