Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nurses bring professional knowledge and personal experience to their work. Sometimes they relate to patients because of similar situations they have experienced themselves. One of the challenges nurses face is separating out the situation of their patients from their own incidents that seem very familiar. Although nurses are trained to keep their own emotional responses detached from the work they do, they sometimes unconsciously identify with the emotions they witness in their patients and families. When situations our patients face mirror our personal lives, nurses and professional caregivers may not recognize the impact they have on them. The spiritual care professional supports staff with the awareness that nurses are also human themselves with their own personal challenges and accompanying emotions. There is great potential for nurses to obtain spiritual support as they strive to provide optimum care to patients as they deal with their own challenges. This article highlights the experience of a nurse and a spiritual care professional who helped her to identify the parallel between her patient’s situation and that of her own and the spiritual and emotional growth that emerged on both a personal and a professional level.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".