Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Harm reduction is becoming integrated into the hospital setting, yet there is a dearth of published academic literature on the topic of harm reduction in mental health nursing practice. No results were found in a literature search focused specifically on harm reduction policies in the inpatient psychiatric settings using the databases CINAHL, Google Scholar, and PubMed. The purpose of this article was to provide a historical overview of harm reduction in Canadian nursing from 1998 to 2018. The aim was to help direct care nurses, educators, and administrators understand past and present trends and to identify future possibilities for integration in inpatient mental health care. A historical perspective was used to identify and explore Canadian harm reduction literature published from 1998 to 2018 to establish the significance to inform nursing practice. The exploration began with a brief description of outreach nursing in early Canada. Focus shifted to the human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome epidemic of the 1980s and 1990s, on to the 2000s when a broader lens of harm reduction was adopted, looking beyond the goal of reducing sexually transmitted illnesses. Literature published in the mid-2000s focused on marginalized populations, highlighting the connection between ethical practice and harm reduction philosophy. At the beginning of the 2010s, the Canadian Nursing Association released position statements that explicitly identified the role of harm reduction in nursing practice. Toward the end of the 2010s, the opioid overdose crisis promoted harm reduction nurses taking a broader focus, entering the hospital settings.
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 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.870 | 0.605 |
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".