The 2005 Helene Hudson Memorial Lecture: Leaving our imprints: An exploration into the nurse-patient relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oncology nursing aims to promote physical and psychosocial well-being of individuals and families at risk for, or living with, a life-threatening illness. A basic component of nursing practice is the nurse-patient relationship (Canadian Nurses Association, 2002). This relationship has been shown to have a positive impact on individuals' well-being as they journey through their cancer experience (Herth, 1995). While the nurse-patient therapeutic relationship is fundamental to nursing care and may be quite subtle in its transaction, it is a complex phenomenon with every encounter being meaningful and impacting both the patient and the nurse. Reflecting on the nature of this relationship can facilitate a richer and deeper awareness of the unique contribution oncology nurses make in the lives they touch and are touched by. This presentation will explore the therapeutic nurse-patient relationship in oncology nursing. The authors intend to facilitate self-reflection and increased awareness of both the art and science of the therapeutic relationship. In particular, qualities of the nurse-patient relationship, the importance of communication, both verbal and nonverbal, and the use of silence will be explored. We will incorporate theory, evidence, experiential learning along with story-telling, music, poetry and video images to convey our message.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".