The Ethics of Relational Stance in Family Nursing: Resisting the View of “Nurse as Expert”
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.
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 | 0.060 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.155 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".