Patients' narratives of open-heart surgery : emplotting the technological.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The steady increase of technology has become particularly ubiquitous in environments of heart surgery. Patients in these environments come into close contact with technology in its many guises. Often, practitioners may be deterred from engaging with patients because technology and the associated routines of care become the focus. As a result, it is important to understand how patients make sense of the technological situations encountered during treatment and recovery with attention to the constitution of identity and emerging moral issues. A narrative methodology was employed to examine patientsâ experiential accounts of the technological in open-heart surgery and recovery. Sixteen patients were interviewed 3-4 days after surgery and 4-6 weeks after discharge, in addition participant journals were employed. \nStudy results pointed to the technological as the dominant discourse in heart surgery and recovery, strongly organizing health care practices and patientsâ recovery. These discursive influences shaped participantsâ stories resulting in two temporal shifts of authorial voice. Authorial voice reflects the dominant discourse and structured how stories unfolded. The first temporal shift exhibited how technology acted as the authorial voice, structuring stories of the preoperative and early postoperative period. Although participants were the narrators of their own stories, they were strongly influenced by the dominant discourse of the technological and its \nassociated dimensions of care. Participantsâ stories revealed how patients were at the centre of activity, but passive, universal and undifferentiated. Although technology continued to influence stories of the later postoperative period and recovery at home, there was a shift of authorial voice to participants. Narratives reflected how the technological was incorporated into participantsâ daily lives, but their stories included more personal elements rooted in their own particularities.\nStudy implications involve a critical uptake of technology that emphasizes the balance between technologically- and humanistically-focused practices in heart surgery and recovery. A key implication is the critical need to encompass affective and social dimensions of patients within the technologically-driven practices of heart surgery. Of great significance is how practitioners, particularly nurses, can act as supporting characters in helping with transitions of authorial voice from the technological back to the participant.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Narrative study of patients' experience of technology in heart surgery; studies clinical care, not scientific practice, so it falls outside the STS-of-research sense of T2.
The work studies patients' narratives and experiences of open-heart surgery technology.
Narrative study of patients’ experience of technology in open-heart surgery is clinical/medical sociology, not study of scientific research practice.
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".