In good hands: the phenomenological significance of human touch for nursing practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prevailing understandings of the nurse's touch tend to be focused on its consoling, instrumental and communicative utility. What seems to be missing is an exploration of the ethical and existential significance of the nurse's touch. As an aspect of nearly every human experience, touch has a depth and breadth of meanings that are hard to compass. We experience the world through our bodies, feeling our way through our lives. In the nurse's world, touching contact with the person in care is often considered to be a fundamental gesture, inherent to nursing practices. Still, touch is often hidden, subsumed by the tasks of nursing themselves. In order to explore the meaningfulness of the nurse's touch, I start with considering the sense of touch itself, exploring possibilities of the nurse's touch. The experience of the nurse's touch is investigated further through phenomenological reflection on descriptive accounts of the nurse's touch from poetry, fictional prose, neonatal nurse interviews, as well as scholarly and personal accounts. These examples show insights into the nurse's touch as a site for an ethical encounter.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".