MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054907480 · doi:10.1177/08918402015003003

Research Evaluating Human Becoming in Practice

2002· article· en· W2054907480 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

VenueNursing Science Quarterly · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursing practiceNursingColumn (typography)Presentation (obstetrics)PsychologyNursing careHuman servicesMedicineComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this column the author synthesizes and discusses the findings of six studies conducted to examine what happens for nurses and patients when human becoming is the guide for practice. In all of the studies, nurse participants' descriptions led to three main themes: transforming intent, unburdening joy, and struggling with change. Patient and family participants' descriptions of nursing care guided by human becoming are also summarized. This column concludes with a presentation of the universal and overarching values for knowledge development in nursing that emerged with the synthesis of the findings and that have the potential to ensure personalized, meaningful, and dignified nursing service delivery.

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)0.083
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0830.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.497
GPT teacher head0.685
Teacher spread0.188 · 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