MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138614568 · doi:10.1177/0894318408329339

A Comparison of Two Nursing Theories in Practice

2009· review· en· W2138614568 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Science Quarterly · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursing theoryNursing practiceMeaning (existential)Perspective (graphical)ParsingInterpersonal communicationClinical PracticePsychologyNursingEpistemologyKey (lock)SociologySocial psychologyMEDLINEMedicineComputer sciencePsychotherapistArtificial intelligencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This column illuminates nursing practice through two unique theoretical perspectives: Peplau's theory of interpersonal relations and Parse's theory of humanbecoming. Processes of each practice method will be explicated as each is related to a practice scenario. The key differences between Peplau's and Parse's practice methodologies are identified. Nursing is a unique, evolving, everchanging profession for which theory can be used as a guide for practice. This column demonstrates two of these unique theories. Whether through health promotion or quality of life from the person's perspective, theory provides meaning in nursing practice and in everyday life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.407 · 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