MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967784362 · doi:10.1177/0898010114536633

Cultivating a Narrative Sensibility in Nursing Practice

2014· article· en· W1967784362 on OpenAlexaff
Rosanne Beuthin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Holistic Nursing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPoverty, Education, and Child Welfare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensibilityNarrativeNursingNursing practicePsychologyAestheticsMedicinePhilosophyArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stories hold meaning, and when persons tell of their experiences of living with illness, they are afforded an opportunity to make sense of all that is happening. As nurses, we have the privilege of hearing the particular, gaining understanding, and creating a powerful encounter that has healing and health benefits. This is a call for nurses to more intentionally invite and listen to the stories of persons living with illness. The mnemonic STORIED is offered to help nurses weave together essential elements of a narrative practice approach: Subjective, Tell/Listen, Openness, Reflection, Invite/Intention, Engage, and Document. Nurses are the voice of the vulnerable, and to learn to listen to our patients' stories such that what is gleaned contributes to their healing is nothing less than a call to excellent care of the unique person before us.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.906

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.368 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Holistic NursingSame topicPoverty, Education, and Child WelfareFrench-language works237,207