The concept of hope in nursing 6: research/education/policy/practice
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, the last in the series, focuses on future international research, education, policy and practice issues that centre around the concept of hope. While a growing literature is accumulating, it needs to be acknowledged that the area of hope and hope inspiration remains under-researched and is consequently not well understood. However, this article highlights future research questions around hope which have been grouped under the broad headings of: (1) the structure of hope; (2) the assessment of hope; (3) the enhancement of hope; (4) the potential outcomes of hope. The article also declares how our current body of knowledge relating to hope has had limited visibility outside professional journals, has not received the funding necessary, and has not been reflected in relevant policies within our healthcare and educational institutions. If the goal is to conduct interdisciplinary research across countries and to gain a global understanding of hope, then greater resources are needed. There is a need to prepare nurses and other healthcare professionals to deal with the challenge of enhancing and maintaining hope in those that they care for in their practice, as well as in themselves.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 |
| 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