MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144841917 · doi:10.12968/bjon.2014.23.2.81

Re-examining the basis for ethical dementia care practice

2014· article· en· W2144841917 on OpenAlexaff
Louise Daly, Elizabeth Fahey-McCarthy

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Nursing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPatient Dignity and Privacy
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaNursing ethicsNursingEngineering ethicsEthical theoriesPsychologyHealth careQuality (philosophy)Ethical decisionNursing practiceMedicineEpistemologySocial psychologyPolitical sciencePsychiatryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ethical nursing practice is an important component of quality dementia care. To be ethically competent, and to acquire the language, knowledge and skills required to explore and resolve ethical dilemmas in practice, the nurse needs an understanding of ethics and of the theory behind ethical decision-making. Traditional theories of ethics and ethical principles are commonly used to explore the dilemmas faced in dementia care practice. While these theories remain influential in healthcare practice, more contemporary ethical theories are equally relevant to the examination of the ordinary and extraordinary ethical dilemmas that present in conditions such as dementia. In this article, the ethical considerations central to effective dementia care nursing will be examined.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.096
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.096
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.092
Scholarly communication0.0180.020
Open science0.0030.013
Research integrity0.0100.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of NursingSame topicPatient Dignity and PrivacyFrench-language works237,207