Patients felt greater personal control and emotional comfort in hospital when they felt secure, informed, and valuedCommentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A M Williams Dr A M Williams, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia, Australia; anne.williams@curtin.edu.au What aspects of the hospital environment affect patients’ feelings of personal control and emotional comfort? Qualitative study using the grounded theory method. Hospitals in Perth, Western Australia. 56 patients >18 years of age (median age range 54–64 y, 59% women) who had been admitted to hospital for any episode of illness and could converse in English. Data were collected through 78 hours of field observation and semistructured interviews with patients. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed thematically using the constant comparative method. Patients identified 3 conditions of the hospital environment that affected their feelings of personal control and emotional comfort. (1) Level of security . Patients’ feelings of personal control increased when assistance was available to help them do things they could not do by themselves; they felt insecure and experienced emotional discomfort when assistance was lacking. One patient described being afraid of injury and feeling insecure when he could not get assistance to fix a broken bed. …
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".