MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888673331 · doi:10.1097/jfn.0000000000000207

Caring as Coercion: Exploring the Nurse's Role in Mandated Treatment

2018· article· en· W2888673331 on OpenAlex
Fiona Jäger, Amélie Perron

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 · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpathyCoercion (linguistics)NursingDilemmaPsychologyNursing careMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When nurses work in environments that have overlapping medical, legal, institutional, social, and therapeutic priorities, nursing care can become an effective tool in advancing the competing goals of these multiple systems. During the provision of patient care, nurses manage the tensions inherent in the competing priorities of these different systems, and skillful nursing can have the effect of rendering these tensions invisible. This puts nurses in an ethically complex position, where on one hand, their humanizing empathy has the potential to improve the delivery and effect of mandated care yet, on the other hand, their skillfulness can render invisible the weaknesses in medicolegal structures. In this article, we present a composite case study as a vehicle to illustrate the way this dilemma manifests in day-to-day nursing interactions and explore the potential of microethics to inform the everyday decisions of nurses delivering care-as-coercion.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.361 · 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