MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Public health nurses as social mediators navigating discourses with new mothers

2008· article· en· W1973287850 on OpenAlexaff
Megan Aston

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Inquiry · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpowermentSociologyPublic relationsMythologyPublic health nursingPublic healthSocial workNursingGender studiesMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public health nurses (PHN) have had a long history of working with new mothers in the community. Their practice includes collaboration, building therapeutic relationships, mutual goal setting, establishing trust, supporting clients' strengths, empowerment and social justice. The wealth of information that new mothers receive both solicited and unsolicited may come from many different sources such as medicine, midwifery and those created personally by families. Although much of the information on mothering is presented with the intent of helping, it can also be hegemonic and oppressive depending on different discourses, stereotypes and myths of mothering and therefore may cause confusion, guilt and uncertainty. Public health nurses often address conflicting social, cultural and personal discourses about mothering practices in order to support an empowering mothering experience. The term 'social mediator' was purposefully created in an attempt to describe the unique work of PHNs that this author has witnessed through her own research and practice as a PHN. This paper will present a discussion of the author's own work and research findings that will suggest how feminist poststructuralist theory may be used to guide and understand information exchange between PHNs and mothers as they mediate different social, cultural and personal discourses on mothering.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations27
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing InquirySame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207