Humanism in forensic psychiatry: the use of the tidal nursing model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The humanist school of thought, which finds resonance in many conceptual models and theories designed to guide nursing practice, needs to be understood in the context of the total institution, where the individual is subjected to a mortification of the self, and denied autonomy. This article will engage in a critical reflection on how humanism has influenced nursing theorists and the subsequent production of conceptual models and theories, especially as they relate to the field of forensic psychiatric nursing. Although humanism provides optimism for nurse-patient relations, this article explores the incapability of such a philosophy to acknowledge the power relationships between individuals and its inability to explain the day-to-day realities experienced in forensic nursing, where the possibility of interpersonal violence reshapes nursing care. The tidal model will be discussed in detail as an example of a recently developed humanistic nursing model. Viewed from this perspective, it is clear that humanistic philosophy and its subsequent models of care are in discordance with the highly specialized field of forensic nursing.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".