MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2918415635 · doi:10.1097/ans.0000000000000266

Towards a Guiding Framework for Prison Palliative Care Nursing Ethics

2019· article· en· W2918415635 on OpenAlexaff
Helen Hudson, David Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Nursing Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingPalliative carePrisonMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The number of people aging and dying behind bars is growing, bringing greater attention to the need for prison palliative care. While this trend has rightly led to increased scholarship, a focus on understanding the most effective way to deliver prison palliative care has overshadowed thinking about why the need itself has arisen, as well as deeper ethical thinking about how the nursing profession should respond. This article interweaves 4 strands of analysis-contextual, relational, social, and political-to produce a framework to guide ethical action in prison palliative care nursing, relevant to practice, research, policy, and education.

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.042
Scholarly communication0.0170.008
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0100.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.616
Teacher spread0.435 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Nursing ScienceSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207