MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085767219 · doi:10.5737/1181912x2026265

Oncology patients’ and nurses’ perceptions of caring

2010· article· en· W2085767219 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Patricia Poirier, Ann Sossong

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Oncology Nursing Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)WatsonPerceptionNursingMedicineUnit (ring theory)EmpathyFamily medicinePsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of caring is central to the practice of nursing. Recent focus on patient-centred care highlights the importance of viewing caring from the patient's perspective. A comparative descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted to determine if there was a difference in oncology patients' and nurses' perceptions of caring. The Caring Behaviors Inventory-Elders (CBI-E) directly derived from Watson's Theory of Human Caring was administered to patients and nurses from in-patient medical-surgical units. This paper reports on a subset of 19 patients and 15 nurses from the oncology unit. There were significant differences between patients' and nurses' perceptions on overall caring and on several individual behaviours. In order to provide true patient-centred care, innovative approaches to addressing these differences are needed.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations27
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Oncology Nursing JournalSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207