Nurses' experiences of creating an artistic instrument for their nursing practice and professional development: an arts-informed narrative inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
My passion for the arts as a medium motivated me to create an art piece (artistic instrument) to enrich my nursing practice. This inspired me to explore how other nurses experience creating their own artistic instruments and what meaning these held for their nursing practice and professional development. In this arts-informed Narrative Inquiry, two participants engaged in a narrative interview and in the Narrative Reflective Process, an artistic approach to creative reflection. Participants’ stories were re-constructed and analyzed using the Narrative Inquiry three-dimensional space (temporality, sociality, and place), and examined through the theoretical lens of Patterns of Knowing. Findings revealed six narrative threads (empathy, quality of life, communication, power imbalances, and personal as well as professional development) highlighting the importance of person-centered care, the value of reflective practice, and the need for further research exploring the use of arts by healthcare providers across diverse educational and practice based 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 | 0.023 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".