MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145317870 · doi:10.1177/0894318409332807

Quality of Life in Contemporary Nursing Theory

2009· article· en· W2145317870 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
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursing theorySituatedQuality of life (healthcare)Context (archaeology)PerceptionQuality (philosophy)PsychologyHolistic nursingCritical appraisalEpistemologyNursingSociologyMEDLINEMedicinePsychotherapistComputer scienceAlternative medicinePhilosophyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A critical appraisal of the concept, quality of life, as used in nursing theories, is presented in a historically situated context. This approach to concept analysis was selected to illuminate the subjective, contextual, and fluid nature of the concept. Based on this review, quality of life is defined as an intangible, subjective perception of one's lived experience. From a review of Peplau's, Rogers', Leininger's, King's, and Parse's conceptualizations of quality of life, it is concluded that it may be viable to replace health with quality of life as a metaparadigm concept for nursing.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.393 · 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