The Suitability of Grounded Theory Research for Correctional Nursing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tension between custody and caring is particular to correctional nursing practice, including issues such as the correctional priorities of safety and security that often dominate nursing practice. The evidence that should underlie correctional nursing practice is regrettably sparse. There are two reasons a grounded theory (GT) approach is paramount for building foundational knowledge to advance correctional nursing practice. First, the development of theories regarding correctional nursing practice will provide an in-depth understanding of this subspecialty of nursing and lead to further research endeavors. Second, correctional nursing practice is a process carried out in correctional institutions. The GT approach is "process oriented" and thus is appropriate for exploring the implementation of correctional nursing practice. Two GT approaches have evolved since first described by Glaser and Strauss. We contend that the approach offered by Strauss and Corbin may be more beneficial for studying how correctional nurses implement their practice.
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 | 0.202 | 0.296 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".