Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While witnessing and providing aggressive care have been identified as predominant sources of moral distress, little is known about what nurses "know" to be the "right thing to do" in these situations. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to explore what nurses' moral knowledge is in situations of perceived overly aggressive medical care. RESEARCH DESIGN: A critical narrative approach was used. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 15 graduate nursing students from various practice areas participated. FINDINGS: Four narrative types were identified, including "Wait and see: medical uncertainty," "Deflected responsibilities to respond to dying, death, or futility," "Divergent understandings, responsibilities, and temporalities," and "Privileged medical understandings and responsibilities." DISCUSSION: The knowledge of differentially situated persons is acknowledged in dissimilar ways, the time required to determine that enough has been done is perceived differently, and how moral responsibilities are understood also varies. CONCLUSIONS: A better understanding of how social roles influence how time, knowledge, and responsibility are related to the provision of aggressive care is needed.
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 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".