MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Nurse-Patient Relationship in Cancer Care as a Shared Covenant

2006· review· en· W2083422703 on OpenAlexaff
Sue Coffey

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Nursing Science · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCovenantPersonhoodReciprocity (cultural anthropology)NursingPsychologyFocus groupNursing careCompetence (human resources)MedicineSocial psychologySociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of the nurse-patient covenant was explored using a multiple-method research design. Analysis of the literature (167 references) was the basis for 2 focus group interviews (12 nurses) and 8 semistructured patient interviews. Attributes, antecedents, and consequences were identified through an analysis of findings across all data sources. The nurse-patient covenant in cancer care is defined as an enduring relationship, embodying caring benevolence and contextually negotiated reciprocity. It is preceded by the demonstration of nursing competence as a manifestation of nursing tradition and leads to patients' trusting and entrusting nurses, the emergence of personhood and professionhood, and benefits and obligations.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.606
Teacher spread0.495 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Nursing ScienceSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207