ADVOCACY IN INTENSIVE CARE AND HOSPITALIZATION BY COURT ORDER: WHAT ARE THE PERSPECTIVES OF NURSES?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective: to analyze how intensive care nurses practice patient advocacy in view of the need for hospitalization by court order to an intensive care due to bed unviability. Method: analytical exploratory qualitative research. Data were obtained through interviews with 42 nurses, selected via snowball sampling, between January and December 2016. The interviews were analyzed using elements of the Discursive Textual Analysis. Results: two categories emerged: 1) Between obedience to the law and the ethical-moral duty of the intensive care nurse; 2) The position of nurses in the practice of patient advocacy for patients requiring intensive care beds. Conclusions: intensive care nurses exercise sensitivity and moral duty of the care process when defending their patients by informing them of their rights, guiding, acting and talking to and on behalf of patients and their families, valuing care free of judgment and harm to the patient hospitalized by court order.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it