Bibliographic record
Abstract
As nurses assume a multitude of roles in health care, public and professional perspectives of nursing vary and, consequently, both clients and providers, including nurses themselves, do not fully appreciate the nature of in-home nursing. In this study ethnographic methods were used to capture participants' perspectives of the actions, practices, values, and beliefs that collectively comprise the culture of nursing in the context of home nursing services in rural Australia. Findings reveal how nurses' and clients' experiences of in-home nursing differ from the textbook picture, and how interactions between nurses' practice approaches and care recipients' enactment of the client role create a cultural context affecting clients' health and well-being. Given similar findings in other countries, the insights gained merit consideration by all professionals concerned about refining home care service approaches in keeping with currently espoused valuing of client-centered, empowering care partnerships.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".