MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040097091 · doi:10.1080/01612840305302

Re-Establishing Psychodynamic Theory as Foundational Knowledge for Psychiatric/Mental Health Nursing

2003· review· en· W2040097091 on OpenAlexaff
Ruth Gallop, Louise O’Brien

Bibliographic record

VenueIssues in Mental Health Nursing · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychodynamicsNursing theoryAssertionTherapeutic relationshipNursingPsychologyInterpersonal communicationMental healthFoundation (evidence)Nursing carePsychotherapistMedicineMEDLINESocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Psychiatric nursing care is based on an interpersonal process that relies on the therapeutic use of self in the service of patient care. Despite acknowledgment of the importance of the relationship, there has been little attention paid to the knowledge embedded in psychodynamic theory that can provide a basis for understanding the nurse-patient relationship. This paper argues that nurses need to understand and apply such theory if they are to pursue the assertion that the relationship with the patient is the foundation of their practice. The authors discuss the essential components of psychodynamic theory and their application to nursing as well as the possible reasons for the loss of interest in such theory.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.470 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIssues in Mental Health NursingSame topicPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207