MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clients' reflections on relationships with nurses: comparisons from Canada and Scotland

2001· article· en· W1968463552 on OpenAlex
Cheryl Forchuk, W. Reynolds

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingPerspective (graphical)Interpersonal relationshipRelevance (law)Interpersonal communicationPsychologyConsumerismPerceptionMedicineSocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been suggested that the crucial elements in nursing situations are the nurse, the client, and what goes on between them. This paper examines what goes on between clients and nurses during interpersonal relationships, from the perspective of the clients. Data are presented from studies conducted in Canada and Scotland. It is shown that what clients want, or do not want, during relationships with their nurses, is similar on both sides of the Atlantic. The findings reported in this paper are relevant to transcultural nursing, ethical care, the growth in consumerism, and client advocacy. The findings suggest also that there is a need for nursing research to focus on clinical outcomes in order to establish whether clients' perceptions of helping relationships have any relevance to favourable health outcomes, and the evidence base for clinical 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.329 · 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