MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588528513 · doi:10.1891/1078-4535.23.1.13

A Foundational Analysis of Dorothea Orem's Self-Care Theory and Evaluation of Its Significance for Nursing Practice and Research

2017· article· en· W2588528513 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

VenueCreative Nursing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursing theoryEpistemologyNursing researchNursing practiceNursing carePsychologySociologyNursingPhilosophyMEDLINEMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In-depth understanding of the ontological and epistemological assumptions of nursing theories can be achieved through theory analysis. Several theory analysis criteria have been proposed for examining ontological and epistemological assumptions, but there are limited examples of actual analysis of these assumptions. This article presents an analysis of the ontological and epistemological assumptions of Dorothea Orem's selfcare theory and evaluates its significance for nursing practice and research.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.711

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.408 · 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