MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041036890 · doi:10.1108/14636646200600016

A concept analysis of ‘forensic’ nursing

2006· article· en· W2041036890 on OpenAlexaff
Alyson Kettles, Phil Woods

Bibliographic record

VenueThe British Journal of Forensic Practice · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)Formal concept analysisMental healthNursingTerm (time)Logical analysisRehabilitationNursing theoryNursing practiceMental health nursingForensic psychiatryPsychologyMedicinePsychiatryMEDLINEComputer sciencePsychotherapistLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forensic nursing is a term applied to nurses working in many different areas of clinical practice, such as high security hospitals, medium secure units, low secure units, acute mental health wards, specialised private hospitals, psychiatric intensive care units, court liaison schemes, and outpatient, community and rehabilitation services. Rarely is the term defined in the general literature and as a concept it is multifaceted. Concept analysis is a method for exploring and evaluating the meaning of words. It gives precise definitions, both theoretical and operational, for use in theory, clinical practice and research. A concept analysis provides a logical basis for defining terms and helps us to refine and define a concept that derives from practice, research and theory. This paper uses the strategy of concept analysis to explore the term ‘forensic nursing’ and finds a working definition of forensic mental health nursing. The historical background and literature are reviewed using concept analysis to bring the term into focus and to define it more clearly. Forensic nursing is found to derive from forensic practice. A proposed definition of forensic nursing is given.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.309 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe British Journal of Forensic PracticeSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207