MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nursing Presence in Contemporary Nursing Practice

2010· review· en· W2147333826 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 Forum · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Nursing, Elderly Care
Canadian institutionsWindsor Clinical Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingMeaning (existential)Nursing practiceContext (archaeology)Nurse educationNursing researchSubject (documents)Nursing theoryMedicinePsychologyMEDLINEComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TOPIC: The concept of nursing presence has been explored within the context of contemporary nursing practice. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to enhance the understanding of the concept of presence in nursing and to enlighten nurses on the subject of being with people in ways that values the meaning of the lived experience of patients. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: Professional literature, electronic resources, and nursing textbooks were used. CONCLUSION: This is a literature review that clarifies the concept of presence for nurses. Clarifying this concept will further aid in the development of nursing research and education, and will provide nurses with the ability to apply the act of being present into their professional 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 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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0050.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.226
GPT teacher head0.566
Teacher spread0.340 · 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