MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nurse Case Management: Negotiating Care Together Within a Developing Relationship

2005· article· en· W2000577301 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives In Psychiatric Care · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityLawson Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationGrounded theoryNursingCase managementSalientTherapeutic relationshipPsychologyFoundation (evidence)Process (computing)Qualitative researchMedicineSociologyPsychotherapistPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: TOPIC/PROBLEM: The purpose of this study was to explicate the process of nurse case management involving clients afflicted with chronic mental illness. METHOD: Grounded theory was the method of choice. Interviews were conducted with nurses in inpatient, transitional, and community settings in four cities in southern Ontario, Canada. FINDINGS: Negotiating care together within a developing relationship emerged as the basic social process. "Building a trusting relationship" was identified as the foundation of case management. CONCLUSIONS: Salient differences were found between the three settings, yet the basic social process was consistent across settings. This underscores the therapeutic relationship as the basis for nurse psychiatric case management.

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)0.000
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.906

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.391 · 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