MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161960211 · doi:10.1177/0894318402239065

Caring as Being in Nursing: Unique or Ubiquitous

2003· review· en· W2161960211 on OpenAlexaff
Sheila M. Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Science Quarterly · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this column is to explore ambiguities concerning the concept of caring as being in nursing and to consider if caring is unique to nursing or ubiquitous, present not only within other health disciplines, but as a potential choice for each person. Clarification is sought through an exploration of four pathways for thinking about caring as being--artistic endeavors, moving beyond self in caring relationships and spirituality, creating caring environments through caring-healing consciousness, and soulful caring consciousness. It is proposed that caring as being is an essential, but not necessarily unique, knowledge source within 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.384 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing Science QuarterlySame topicCounseling, Therapy, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207