A Buberian Approach to the Co-construction of Relationships Between Professional Caregivers and Residents in Nursing Homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article demonstrates the value of a Buberian approach to relationships between professional caregivers and residents in nursing homes. Extant research on relationships between professional caregivers and residents typically distinguishes between task-centered and person-centered communication yet tends to privilege either the perspective of professionals or residents. To address this issue, we develop an approach that addresses the co-construction of I-It and I-Thou relationships, based on Martin Buber's social existentialist philosophy. In turn, we show the merit of this approach by using it to analyze interactional data from an observational study on morning care in Dutch nursing homes. As these examples illustrate, our analytical perspective is useful because it highlights how different caregiver-resident relationships are co-created and unfold over time. Thus, by revealing how these relationships are worked out in everyday interactions through subtle shifts between task-centered and person-centered communicative practices, this article offers important insights for improving the quality of care in nursing homes.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".