A Faith Community Nursing Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Faith community nursing is introduced to students in third year of the BScN curriculum as one of the roles that nurses may have in community health. The plan to develop a faith community nursing placement was initiated when a local parish contacted the nursing professor to have student nurses assist with blood pressure screening and the organization of a health fair. This request created a unique opportunity to have three students placed with a nursing professor to address the health needs of the parish members. Partnerships with educational institutions have been found to enhance faith community health care, and provide learners such as nursing students with an opportunity to practice in a faith-based learning environment (Maitlen, Bockstahler, & Belcher, 2012; Otterness, Gehrke, & Sener, 2007). The main objectives of this initiative were to review the literature on faith community nursing, identify a model to guide the assessment and work that would occur within the setting, and to complete a needs assessment of the faith community. The assessment of the faith community was guided by the socio-ecological model (Campbell et al., 2007) which further informed the planning and delivery of the most appropriate health promotion activities within this setting.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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".