The concept of hope in nursing 3: hope and palliative care nursing
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
This article is the third in a series of six that explores the nature of hope, reviews the existing theoretical and empirical work in several discrete areas of nursing, and provides case studies to illustrate the role that hope plays in clinical situations. This article focuses on hope within the specialty area of palliative care nursing. Nurse researchers have been instrumental in our current early understandings of hope in palliative care. Studies of hope in palliative care, over the past decades, have focused primarily on those individuals in the advanced stages of cancer and the human immunodeficiency virus. Studies using quantitative methodology have focused on exploring hope levels across the dying trajectory and the relationship between hope and other psychosocial variables while those using qualitative methodology have focused on the meaning of hope and elucidating how terminally ill individual maintain and engender their hope. Research supports that the clinician is an instrument through which hope can be assessed and administered. There is a need for further rigorous investigation of the role of hope during the terminal phase of an illness with specific emphasis on capturing the intangible inner experiences of hope and on the validation of interventions/strategies that develop and maintain hope for both the terminally ill person and his/her family caregivers and significant others.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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