MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The concept of hope in nursing 1: its origins, background and nature

2002· review· en· W1588720178 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

VenueBritish Journal of Nursing · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicOptimism, Hope, and Well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingNursing literatureNursing theoryPhenomenonNursing researchGerontological nursingMedicinePsychologyMEDLINEEpistemologyAlternative medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hope has been described in theoretical terms for many years but the recognition of the importance of hope within the practice of nursing is a more recent phenomenon. Despite the recent growth of references to hope within contemporary nursing literature, it is reasonable to suggest that there remain gaps in the substantive knowledge base and that there appears to be room for both additional research and further discursive literature. Accordingly, this series of six articles will explore the nature of hope, review the existing theoretical and empirical work in several discrete areas of nursing, and provide case studies to illustrate the role that hope plays in clinical situations. This article focuses on the origins, background and definitions of hope. The next article will examine hope within mental health nursing, and further articles will focus on hope within palliative care nursing, hope in gerontological nursing and hope in critical and acute care 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.347 · 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