SCHOLARLY PAPER: Defining the fundamentals of care
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
A three-stage process is being undertaken to investigate the fundamentals of care. Stage One (reported here) involves the use of a met a-narrative review methodology to undertake a thematic analysis, categorization and synthesis of selected contents extracted from seminal texts relating to nursing practice. Stage Two will involve a search for evidence to inform the fundamentals of care and a refinement of the review method. Stage Three will extend the reviews of the elements defined as fundamentals of care. This introductory paper covers the following aspects: the conceptual basis upon which nursing care is delivered; how the fundamentals of care have been defined in the literature and in practice; an argument that physiological aspects of care, self-care elements and aspects of the environment of care are central to the conceptual refinement of the term fundamentals of care; and that efforts to systematize such information will enhance overall care delivery through improvements in patient safety and quality initiatives in health systems.
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 | 0.009 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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