MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988851485 · doi:10.1207/s15327027hc1702_5

Hope, Disclosure, and Control in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

2005· article· en· W1988851485 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Communication · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersKillam TrustsHope Foundation
KeywordsNeonatal intensive care unitControl (management)NursingCritically illMedicineFace (sociological concept)Intensive careUnit (ring theory)PsychologyHealth careSense of controlIntensive care medicinePsychiatrySocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The parents of critically ill newborns who have been admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) generally face several challenges. Included in these challenges is the possibility of having access to information and a certain level of disclosure about the diagnosis, treatment options, and prognosis for their newborn. A related challenge is the ability to have some control over the care of their newborn. In this article, I (first author) share my own experiences of having a child admitted to an NICU, and I discuss how a lack of disclosure affected the decision making and involvement I had in my child's care and hindered my ability to find hope. A loss of hope can both contribute to a sense of powerlessness and exacerbate the negative aspects of these NICU experiences. I argue that when health care providers offer parents the disclosure they want and need, as well as a certain amount of control over the care of their child while in the NICU, the ability of parents to find hope will be increased, and they will be better able to cope successfully in the NICU environment.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.350 · 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