Physiological stability: a concept analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To present a concept analysis of physiological stability. BACKGROUND: Physiological stability is an ubiquitous concept in the literature. However, no operational definition of this concept seems to be clearly established even though a literature review demonstrates multiple uses of the concept. Thus, a concept analysis is required to clarify the concept of physiological stability and identify its theoretical bases. DESIGN: Walker and Avant's method of concept analysis. DATA SOURCES: The databases consulted to perform the literature review of concept of physiological stability were: CINAHL, Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, Eric and EMB Reviews. Articles were included when the keywords physiological and stability were present in the title or abstract in articles published between 2000-2012, available electronically or in paper at the libraries. REVIEW METHOD: This concept analysis was performed using the 8-step method proposed by Walker and Avant. RESULTS: Identification of the attributes, antecedents and consequences of physiological stability led to an operational definition of the concept of physiological stability as a dynamic state of a living organism characterized by the maintenance of one or more physiological parameters within value ranges that vary only slightly in the presence of disruptive elements. It is an adaptive response reflecting the physiological balance of the living organism. CONCLUSION: This analysis contributes to the advancement of knowledge of the concept of physiological stability by proposing an operational definition derived from theoretical foundations. This concept is important within nursing because it helps to define the effectiveness of nursing interventions and attests to clients' well-being.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".