MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Explorations of a trust approach for nursing ethics

2001· review· en· W1965236213 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Inquiry · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsWomen's and Gender Studies et Recherches FéministesUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCurtin University of Technology
KeywordsPaternalismCompetence (human resources)Vulnerability (computing)Ethics of careNursing ethicsNursingEconomic JusticeSociologyPerspective (graphical)Engineering ethicsClinical EthicsPsychologyEpistemologyMedicineSocial psychologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trust has long been acknowledged as central to nurse-patient relationships. It, however, has not been fully explored normatively. That is, trust must be examined from a perspective that encompasses not only reliability and competence, but also good will within nursing relationships. In this paper, we explore how a trust approach, based on Annette Baier's work on trust in feminist ethics, could help inform future developments in nursing ethics. We discuss the limitations of other approaches such as those based on contracts, paternalism, and care. By drawing out central features of Baier's theory, we demonstrate how it can help overcome the problems of these previous models. In doing so, we emphasise the importance of combining the ethics of care and justice, acknowledging vulnerability and the potential for evil in nursing relationships, and politically situating the ethical concerns of 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0040.017
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 head0.706
GPT teacher head0.646
Teacher spread0.060 · 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