Nurse–client processes in mental health: recipients’ perspectives
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An ethnonursing method was selected to explore and describe nursing support relationships, from the perspectives of recipients, within the mental health subculture. Data sources consisted of three semi-structured client interviews (n = 14) and field notes. When nurses were described as nice and friendly, and validated the client as a person by listening, three overlapping phases of development emerged from the data. These included: a glimmer of help, exploring and problem solving, and saying goodbye. When clients had negative experiences with nurses, they felt a lack of trust towards nurses and felt that their feelings were left unexplored. As a result, the relationships deteriorated. Deterioration began immediately in the first phase called withholding, and continued through the phases of avoiding and ignoring, and struggling with and making sense of. These findings raise healthcare providers' awareness about developing and deteriorating nurse-client relationships, and support the value of the therapeutic relationship as an instrument to restore and promote clients' health.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it