MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3049729838 · doi:10.11575/prism/38080

The Implementation of Correctional Nursing Practice in Alberta: A Grounded Theory Study

2020· dissertation· en· W3049729838 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kirnvir K. Dhaliwal

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2020
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrounded theoryNursingNursing theoryNursing practicePsychologyMedicineQualitative researchSociologyPolitical scienceMEDLINESocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: In three Canadian provinces, offenders in provincial custody receive healthcare services from health authorities, rather than correctional services. Alberta made the care transition to the health authority in 2010. The governance of correctional healthcare services by health authorities, and not the correctional services, may be advantageous as healthcare professionals are possibly less likely to experience tension between corrections (custody) and health (caring) priorities. There is uncertainty about if and how this tension between custody and caring still exists and is experienced by Canadian registered nurses (RNs) practicing in provincial custody with healthcare governance by health authorities. Therefore, the aim of this doctoral research was to study how RNs implement their nursing practice in the Alberta provincial custody correctional system. Method: Straussian grounded theory approach was used. Simultaneous data collection and analysis were undertaken using theoretical sampling, constant comparison, and memo writing. RNs (n = 13) engaged in semi-structured telephone interviews, focused on the experience of implementing their correctional nursing practice and providing nursing care to offenders. Data were collected until saturation occurred. Analytic coding (open, axial, and final theoretical integration) was performed to identify the core category (Caring Behind Bars) and its six subcategories around which the substantive theory was developed. Findings: The theory of Caring Behind Bars refers to the process of how RNs implemented their correctional nursing practice to care for the offender population. RNs possessed a foundational stance regarding what nursing practice means to them in general. Upon entering the correctional context, RNs experienced tension between custody and caring. RNs engaged in adaptability and advocacy to address this tension and access the offender population. The provision of care required RNs to take numerous actions – interactions to provide care to offenders. The consequences of Caring Behind Bars were challenging and positive outcomes. Significance: The research resulted in the development of foundational knowledge to advance Canadian correctional nursing practice and offered potential insights into promoting offender health.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.845

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0180.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.415 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→Same topicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis→French-language works237,207→