Bibliographic record
Abstract
While it is generally undisputed that nurses and parents may develop close and meaningful relationships within pediatric oncology contexts, there is significant tension about how to describe this closeness (Webber, 2020).As a pediatric oncology nurse, despite having had patients and family members refer to me as a "friend," I too, am uncertain about what language to use that might be able to describe the relational complexity that nurses and parents experience, while caring for a child with cancer.While there is considerable hesitation to ascribe friendship to nurse-parent relationships, both in the literature and in hospital policies, I would like to suggest that, from a Gadamerian philosophical hermeneutic lens, the phenomenon of friendship might be able to aptly acknowledge the meaningfulness, intricacies, and particularities of nurseparent relationships.By deepening our understanding about friendship, there is also an opportunity to demonstrate the utmost importance of family nursing practice (International Family Nursing Association, 2015), as navigating the lifealtering experience of childhood cancer is, understandably, a family affair.
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 | 0.019 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.037 | 0.033 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
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".