Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is perhaps conventional wisdom that the therapeutic relationship is a cornerstone of psychiatric nursing. It is almost a sine qua non. However, while its importance may be widely recognized, it is notoriously undefined and even those who profess to practise or utilize it, or those who advocate it most strongly, have difficulty in saying exactly what it is. This report details a study carried out with six experienced psychiatric nurses to explore and describe perceptions and understandings of pivotal moments within therapeutic relationships. The nurses were asked, in a series of one-to-one interviews, to consider relationships with clients that they would themselves describe as therapeutic and meditate on those moments at which everything seemed to change and the relationship became qualitatively different. Among the factors the nurses reported as being significant were empathy, uniqueness, meaning and purpose, and appropriate self-disclosure (although many of those terms may require clarification). This paper will consider the implications of these and others for nursing practice and the identity of psychiatric nursing practice.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".