MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108215986 · doi:10.1177/1074840709331639

Therapeutic Letters in Nursing

2009· article· en· W2108215986 on OpenAlex
Nancy J. Moules

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Nursing · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObligationInterpretation (philosophy)PsychologyIntervention (counseling)Session (web analytics)PsychotherapistTone (literature)NursingMedicinePsychiatryLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article summarizes the first research to be completed on the Family Systems Nursing intervention of therapeutic letters. In the Family Nursing Unit (FNU) at the University of Calgary, therapeutic letters have been used for more than 22 years in work with families experiencing illness and suffering. Using Gadamerian philosophical hermeneutic inquiry, the research explores 11 therapeutic letters sent and received in the work with three families (four participants) seen in the FNU. Textual interpretation of the 11 letters was complemented by research interviews with the families and nurses who wrote the letters as well as in-session, presession, and postsession transcriptions. Interpretations suggest that letters have an influence related to the tone of the individuals and the relationship created; the balancing of questions, commendations, and artful writing; memory and remembrance; measures and markers of change; and the obligation of meeting people experiencing illness at the point of their suffering.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.723

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.329 · 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