Clients' and Nurses' Perspectives on Caring as Related to Nursing Leadership - The Hellenic Dimension, Part One
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public perceptions of caring are vital to the future of the nursing profession. Literature indicates that patients conceive caring in a traditional manner which contrasts with that of nurses. This paper addresses the culturally determined complex and interactive personal, historical and sociopolitical factors that account for the development of clients' and nurses' perceptions of caring and explains the differences observed in research between the two groups. It also discusses the high cost that society and nursing pay today for the poor public image of nurse caring. Finally, it identifies strategies that nurses, especially those in leadership positions, can use to improve the consumer's view of caring and to reduce the gap existing between clients' and professionals' perceptions of the concept. The Hellenic perspective is used as a reference point to present the relevance of the issue to the broader context of nursing in the world. The paper is based upon primary and secondary data including research findings, legislation, the authors' observations and experiences with their domestic health care system, and available literature on the subject.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".