Transpersonal caring model in home-Care nursing for children with special care needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study was theoretically and philosophically guided by the Theory of Human Care, entailing the use of the Elements of the Clinical Caritas Process, having humanistic assumptions based on Home Care, and being operationalized by the following action steps: Initial Contact, Approaching, Transpersonal Encounter and Separation. It aimed to apply the Transpersonal Care Model in Home Care Nursing to children with special healthcare needs. Qualitative care-research (intervention), developed by means of five components: approaching the studied object; encounter with the cared-researched being; connections between theory and practice; separation from the researcher-caregiver being to the cared-researched being, and analysis of what has been learned by means of the General Analytical Strategy – Relying on theoretical propositions – and Specific Analytical Technique – Pattern Combination. The key results from the development of each one of the steps are, as follows: assumptions were applied 537 times, 322 usages of the Clinical Caritas Process, and 467 care needs were met by means of the model. The model potentialities were identified, understanding that it was built for the population at home care, thus enabling relation development, meeting their needs, and supporting nurses to foster care delivery.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".