MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2985355111 · doi:10.1111/nuf.12413

Are perspective‐taking outcomes always positive? Challenges and mitigation strategies

2019· article· en· W2985355111 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Forum · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaManitoba Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Psychological interventionInterpersonal communicationIntervention (counseling)PsychologyHealth carePatient satisfactionInterpersonal relationshipMedicineNursingSocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Engaging in perspective-taking often has positive outcomes for both healthcare providers and patients. Perspective-taking by healthcare providers has been linked to increased patient satisfaction and compliance, patients' positive perceptions of healthcare providers' interpersonal skills, and a reduction in judgmental attitudes toward individuals who engage in health-risk behaviors. The positive outcomes that are associated with perspective-taking are often highlighted in the literature. However, less discussed are the negative outcomes. AIM: This paper discusses the positive and negative outcomes associated with perspective-taking and presents potential methods for mitigating negative outcomes. CONCLUSION: When designing and implementing perspective-taking interventions, educators and researchers should consider potential negative intervention outcomes and strategies to attenuate these outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.344 · 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