MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Watson's Philosophy, Science, and Theory of Human Caring as a Conceptual Framework for Guiding Community Health Nursing Practice

2000· review· en· W2053184333 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Nursing Science · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWatsonNursing theoryHolistic healthNursingConceptual frameworkPsychologyEngineering ethicsSociologyEpistemologyMEDLINEMedicinePhilosophyAlternative medicineComputer scienceEngineeringPolitical scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Criticisms of existing nursing theories in relation to community health nursing practice are that they focus on individuals and have been developed primarily for practice within the context of infirmity and disease, making them inadequate to guide community health nursing practice. Despite being developed for individuals, Watson's theory is proposed as a nursing framework that is philosophically congruent with contemporary global approaches to community health and health promotion. An overview of her theory identifies the centrality of caring, holism, and ecology in the theory as it has evolved over the past 20 years. Concepts developed for individual-nurse interactions are extrapolated to the community in a discussion of the suitability of the theory to guide community health nursing practice. A community assessment tool based on Watson's theory is provided.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.625
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0110.009
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.584
Teacher spread0.371 · 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