The ethics of relation: public health nurses and child protection clients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this paper is to show how a framework of relational ethics may be used in establishing trusting relationships with at-risk families. BACKGROUND: Public health nurses have historically carried out assessment and monitoring of parenting within the family home, particularly with at-risk families. In this role, they are placed in the position of simultaneously supporting and policing the family. A trusting relationship may be difficult to develop if parents feel threatened by the surveillance aspect of home visiting and the threat of action (such as removal of children) being taken against the family. DISCUSSION: Development of optimal trust relationships may be a challenge when families are experiencing powerlessness and oppression. The four themes of relational ethics--mutual respect, engaged interaction, embodiment and creating environment--provide a framework for developing trusting relationships with families. CONCLUSION: It is possible to have a moral and trusting relationship with at-risk families, but this needs to based on critical self-reflection by nurses and mutually respectful nurse-family relations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".