MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1557222034 · doi:10.3928/0148-4834-20020901-08

Beyond Behavioral Skills to HumanInvolved Processes: Relational Nursing Practice and Interpretive Pedagogy

2002· review· en· W1557222034 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanismValue (mathematics)Power (physics)PedagogyPsychologyNursing practiceSociologyNursingMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article argues that the teaching of behavioral communication skills may interfere with the learning of humanistic nursing practice. By inviting readers to consider moving beyond a method approach, the author discusses the pedagogical value of interpretive inquiry for the teaching-learning of relational practice. The author asserts that, as a "nonmethod," a pedagogy of interpretive inquiry can create opportunities for nursing students to learn and experience the transformative power of relationship, gain confidence in their capacity for relational being and a sense of trust in their ability to be with people in ways that are authentic and meaningful, and develop their overall ability to enact humanistic, relational nursing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.410 · 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