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 OpenAlex
Louise Daly, Elizabeth Fahey-McCarthy

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

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.093
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