MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982380448 · doi:10.1177/1084822307310766

Ethics in Telehealth Nursing Practice

2008· article· en· W1982380448 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

VenueHome Health Care Management & Practice · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelehealthNursingEthical issuesNursing practiceAdvanced practice nursingReflection (computer programming)Clinical PracticeEngineering ethicsMedicinePsychologyTelemedicineHealth careComputer scienceNurse practitionersPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Telehealth nurses frequently encounter ethical issues in practice. The ability to identify moral dimensions of practice concerns is an important first step in resolving such issues. In this article, some common ethical terms are explained, and typical ethical problems for Telehealth nurses described. A conceptual model applicable to Telehealth nursing is presented and discussed as a framework for ethical reflection. Characteristics of ethical Telehealth nurses are outlined, and the importance of values clarification in ethical practice emphasized.

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.430 · 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