Patients’ attitudes, the hospital environment, and staff behaviour affected patients’ dignity on a surgical wardCommentary
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
What is the meaning of dignity for patients in an acute care hospital? How is dignity threatened or promoted? Qualitative case study. Surgical ward in an acute care hospital in the UK. Purposeful case sample of 24 patients 34–92 years of age (mean age 64 y, 62% men) who were admitted to hospital and stayed on the ward for ⩾2 days; and 26 ward-based staff (nurses and healthcare assistants) and 6 senior nurses. Patients were observed on the ward during twelve 4-hour sessions, and field notes were taken. 12 patients and 13 ward-based staff were interviewed immediately after observation; 12 other patients were interviewed within 2 weeks of discharge. 6 senior nurses were interviewed separately. Questions addressed the meaning of dignity; effects of hospital setting, staff, or situations on patient dignity; and how to promote dignity. Detailed notes, including verbatim speech, were taken; patient interviews after discharge and those with senior nurses were audiotaped and transcribed. Data were coded and analysed for themes. 4 themes were found. (1) …
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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