MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Differences and similarities in the perception of caring between Spanish and UK nurses

2002· article· en· W2094828942 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Nursing · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Competency in Health Care
Canadian institutionsKwantlen Polytechnic University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionDimension (graph theory)PsychologyNursingContrast (vision)Work (physics)EmpathySocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the present paper was to compare and contrast perceptions of caring in nursing between Spanish and UK nurses. There are no previous studies comparing directly the perceptions of caring across cultures in nursing. A survey method was used employing the 25-item Caring Dimensions Inventory. Data were Mokken scaled for comparison with data from a previous study and scores for common items on the 25-item Caring Dimension Inventory for Spanish and UK nurses were correlated. There were similarities and differences between Spanish and UK nurses' perceptions of caring: many similar items were incorporated into Mokken scales but the endorsement of items did not correlate. The present work demonstrates that it is possible to measure differences and similarities in perceptions of caring. The study design could be improved and such work could be valuable in cross-cultural work with nurses.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.292 · 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