Bibliographic record
Abstract
This hermeneutic phenomenological inquiry reveals the meaning in critical care nurses' lived experiences of making a difference in practice with a view to deepening our understanding of nursing in pursuing nursing excellence. It serves to show how critical care nurses make a difference and what difference they make to critically ill patients in a manner that more fully captures nursing practice as enacted in the critical care setting. The authors subjected transcripts of the conversations with 16 critical care nurse participants to a thematic analysis and reflective process from which the following themes emerged: making the inhumane humane, making the unbearable bearable, making the life threatening life sustaining, and making the unlivable livable. Guided by the lifeworld existentials, these themes became the threads around which an interpretive-descriptive text was written. The authors wove other relevant sources of lived-experience material into the evolving text to assist with the explication of meaning.
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 | 0.017 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".