Bibliographic record
Abstract
The incidence of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) in Australia is rising. Women experiencing IPV seek assistance through Emergency Departments (ED). Women exhibit help-seeking behaviours to nurses who work in emergency over medical or allied health professionals. Nurses’ capacity to recognise the need to care for women experiencing IPV is essential. The aim of this study was to explore nurses’ capacity to care for women who have experienced IPV through outlining inhibiting factors that limit care and create a discourse that contributes to addressing these factors. Pre (n=10) and post (n=6) focus groups (FGs) were undertaken with nurses who work in ED. In between the FGs an intervention was applied to prompt change to caring practices. The discourse generated from the FGs was subjected to a Foucauldian discourse analysis from a poststructural feminist perspective. Participants’ capacity to care was found to be based on the values they formed on IPV, as shaped by their post-registration training. The formation of boundaries was fundamental in inhibiting the participants’ capacity to care. Challenging boundaries through educational inquiry into nursing values can be effective in shifting perspectives of IPV. The raising of awareness of IPV in our communities serves as a vital tool in eliciting cultural behaviour change within EDs and within nursing culture.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.013 |
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".