Professional Socialization: A Grounded Theory of the Clinical Reasoning Processes That RNs and LPNs Use to Recognize Delirium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Delirium is an acute disorder of attention and cognition. It affects half of older adults in acute care settings and is a cause of increasing mortality and costs. Registered nurses (RNs) and licensed practical nurses (LPNs) frequently fail to recognize delirium. The goals of this research were to identify the reasoning processes that RNs and LPNs use to recognize delirium, to compare their reasoning processes, and to generate a theory that explains their clinical reasoning processes. Theoretical sampling was employed to elicit data from 28 participants using grounded theory methodology. Theoretical coding culminated in the emergence of Professional Socialization as the substantive theory. Professional Socialization emerged from participants' responses and was based on two social processes, specifically reasoning to uncover and reasoning to report. Professional Socialization makes explicit the similarities and variations in the clinical reasoning processes between RNs and LPNs and highlights their main concerns when interacting with delirious patients.
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 | 0.025 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".