Comparing feeling of competence regarding humanistic caring in Belgian nurses and nursing students: A comparative cross‐sectional study conducted in a French Belgian teaching hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: The aim of the study was to describe and compare feeling of competence regarding humanistic caring in Registered Nurses (RN) and nursing students (NS). Design: A quantitative comparative cross-sectional research design was used. Methods: A convenience sample of 196 RN and 47 NS in a teaching hospital in Belgium completed a self-administered questionnaire composed of a sociodemographic survey and the Caring Nurse-Patient Interactions Scale (CNPI-23) developed by Cossette et al. Results: The four dimensions of the CNPI-23 were compared using the Skillings-Mack test. Both groups scored higher on "humanistic" and "comforting" than on "clinical" and "relational" care and both scored lowest on this last dimension. Linear regressions showed that none of the variables had a statistically significant influence on the CNPI-23 scores, except for NS "state of health," which influenced their feeling of competence regarding "relational care."
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".