The Ethics of Relational Stance in Family Nursing: Resisting the View of “Nurse as Expert”
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nurses make choices about how to situate themselves in relation to the people they encounter in clinical practice. In this article, the notion of resisting the view of the “nurse as expert” is offered as a caution against some of the ways that professional values and practices of experts can influence relational skills in clinical nursing practice with families. These ideas are based on a hermeneutic research project that explored the advanced clinical practice of nurses engaged in therapeutic conversations with families experiencing ischemic heart disease. Exemplars from the research project illustrate relational practices that can counterbalance expert professional views by explicitly acknowledging the expertise and knowledge of those persons and families encountered in practice. These practices include offering commendations, coevolving a description using the family’s language, exploring the illness story and the medical story, asking questions that invite reflection, and initiating conversations about family members’ preferences.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it