MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160974549 · doi:10.1177/1049732311421182

Establishing Therapeutic Relationships With Vulnerable and Potentially Stigmatized Clients

2011· article· en· W2160974549 on OpenAlexaff
Caroline Porr, Jane Drummond, Kärin Olson

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrounded theoryPsychologyPublic health nursingContext (archaeology)Qualitative researchPublic healthSocial psychologyProcess (computing)SociologyNursingMedicineComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grounded theory was employed to elucidate how public health nurses (PHNs) develop therapeutic relationships with vulnerable and potentially stigmatized clients, specifically, single mothers living in low-income situations. We named the emerging theoretical model Targeting Essence: Pragmatic Variation of the Therapeutic Relationship, after discovering that although PHNs strove to achieve relational goals, their attention was primarily focused on the goal of ascertaining concerns foremost on the hearts and minds of mothers, and that PHNs had to accomplish these goals within short practice timeframes. The study's focused context elicited a nuanced explanation of the dynamic relationship-building process derived from subjective relationship experiences of PHNs and single mothers living in low-income situations. We believe Targeting Essence will serve as an effectual relationship-building model, enabling PHNs to know essentially what mothers want and need, and enabling mothers to know essentially that their PHN can be trusted not to render judgment.

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 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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.574
GPT teacher head0.601
Teacher spread0.028 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations27
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207