Nursing Students Learn About Complementary and Alternative Health Care Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Informed by a philosophy that embraces wholeness and balance of body-mind-spirit, the authors each led a 13-week university course in which undergraduate students explored the history and practice of alternative and complementary healing modalities. Students submitted weekly journals chronicling their responses to and understanding of the course material. The journals were examined to gain an understanding of students’ experiences related to all aspects of the course content and process. Thematic analysis revealed a major concept (searching and re-searching) as well as five subconcepts (engaging, opening, hesitating, understanding, and knowing) that represented the iterative process of interacting with and reflecting on the learning of often unfamiliar approaches to healing. Of significant interest was the tremendous personal growth identified by students. Nursing students were also able to recognize the utility of their new awareness and knowledge within the context of nursing care delivery, acknowledging the role of alternative and complementary therapies and treatments in the choices made and care accepted by their clients. Implications of the findings for nursing education include the need to expose students to such information and experiences for improved professional nursing practice and health care in general.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".