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
Forensic psychiatric nurses work with individuals who may evoke feelings of empathy as well as feelings of disgust, repulsion, and fear. The main objective of this theoretical paper is to engage the readers in a theoretical reflection regarding the concepts of abjection and fear since they both apply to the experiences of caring for mentally ill individuals in forensic psychiatric settings. Our contention is with the potential impact of feelings such as disgust, repulsion, and fear on the therapeutic relationship and, more particularly, with the boundaries imposed on this relationship when these feelings are unrecognized by nurses. Acknowledging that patients may evoke feelings of disgust, repulsion, and fear is essential if nurses wish to understand the implications of these emotions in the therapeutic process. In forensic psychiatric settings, caring for so-called "monsters" in the face of abjection and fear is not an easy task to achieve given the lack of theoretical understanding regarding both concepts. Given the actual state of knowledge in forensic nursing, we argue that theoretical (conceptual) analyses, as well as ethical and political discussions, are paramount if we wish to understand the specificities of this complex field of nursing practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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