MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904113530 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v9n4p65

Childrens participation in the PICU from the nurses' perspective

2018· article· en· W2904113530 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elisabeth Wimo, Ann‐Mari Fagerdahl, Janet Mattsson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPediatric intensive care unitNursingPerspective (graphical)SituatedPsychologyQualitative researchSalience (neuroscience)Exploratory researchMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children who are critically ill are vulnerable and the nurse has a responsibility to meet the child's needs in a pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). The aim was to explore the vulnerable child's participation and how it can be understood through the nurses’ perspective in the nursing care intervention. The study design was an exploratory inductive qualitative approach. Data collection was done through observations and interviews. The data from the observations were analyzed through interpretive phenomenology. The affective elements were viewed as essential for uncover how children participate in the PICU. Three themes emerged through the analysis: Mediated participation, Bodily participation and Participation by proxy. They all highlight different aspect of the vulnerable child's way of participating in the nursing care given, through nurses’ awareness and situated salience. The concept participation should be redefined and broadened; as participation can present itself through the child’s body in diverse ways.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.392 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207