MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nursing, empathy and perception of the moral

2000· review· en· W1969736069 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

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmpathy and Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpathyPerspective (graphical)Meaning (existential)Context (archaeology)PsychologyPerceptionSocial psychologyMoral reasoningMoral developmentMoral disengagementEmpirical evidenceNursingMedicineEpistemologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last 15-20 years we have witnessed a dramatic interest in the moral domain of clinical practice. There has also been a growing focus on the patient as an individual whose individuality and perspective must be respected. It is argued in this paper that a key to both these concerns is a consideration of the role of empathy in both perceiving the moral aspects and issues of practice, and in providing adequate support for patients. In this paper the meaning and components of empathy are discussed in the context of human receptivity and preconditions of moral performance. However, we also draw attention to empirical studies which suggest that even following adequate educational preparation, if the clinical environment and the structures within which care is delivered are not supportive, the practitioner's ability to perceive the moral is limited. In such circumstances, patients are in danger of receiving less than appropriate care - from both the moral and professional perspective.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.360 · 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