MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125855539 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v6n4p1

How School Nurses Experience Their Work with Schoolchildren Who Have Mental Illness – A Qualitative Study in a Swedish Context

2014· article· en· W2125855539 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fikrije Dina, Zada Pajalić

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSchool Health and Nursing Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental illnessInterviewMental healthQualitative researchContext (archaeology)Content analysisPsychologySchool nursingNursingMedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Reports from research have shown that mental illness has increased dramatically in recent years and is currently one of the biggest problems among Swedish children and adolescents. AIM: The aim of this study was to describe how Swedish school nurses experience their work with schoolchildren who have mental illness. METHOD: Data were gained by individual interviews with school nurses (n = 10) and were analyzed by using manifest qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The results of the study showed that school nurses used various tools when working with schoolchildren who have mental illness. The working tools were regular health talks, motivational interviewing, individual counseling, family counseling, creating trust, and affirming the child's confidence. CONCLUSION: Results of the study demonstrate the need for further research on schoolchildren's experience of getting help and support from the school nurse.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.425 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicSchool Health and Nursing EducationFrench-language works237,207