MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2462835278 · doi:10.1097/jfn.0000000000000097

Caring in Correctional Nursing

2016· review· en· W2462835278 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Nursing · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForensic nursingNursingContext (archaeology)NarrativeHealth carePsychologyMedicinePoison controlPolitical scienceMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Registered nurses are the primary healthcare providers for offenders in correctional facilities. The way in which correctional nurses care for offenders can be difficult in this context. Following a systematic review and narrative synthesis of literature regarding how correctional nurses show caring for offenders three themes emerged: the struggle of custody and caring (conflicting ethical and philosophical ideologies, correctional priorities that override nursing priorities, safety and security), the need to be nonjudgmental (judgmental attitudes can impact care; focus on health not the crime), and the importance of boundaries. Implications for practice focus on recommendations to promote caring in correctional nursing; the outcome of which will potentially enhance quality of care for offenders and improve working environments for nurses.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.353 · 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