The Developing Nurse-Client Relationship: Nurses' Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This descriptive qualitative study of the nurse-client relationship used an interpersonal focus and Leininger's (1985) method of qualitative analysis. The setting was a tertiary care psychiatric hospital in southern Ontario, Canada. Nurses within 10 newly formed dyads participated in interviews. The research questions focused on the nature and progression of the relationship and the identification of helping and hampering influences. Helping influences identified included consistency, pacing, listening, positive initial impressions, and attention to comfort and control. Relationships were hampered by inconsistency, unavailability, client factors related to trust, nurses' feelings about the client, confronta tion of delusions, and unrealistic expectations. Phases consistent with those described by Peplau (1952, 1991) were identified within dyads that progressed well. However, a different set of phases was identi fied in nontherapeutic relationships. (J Am Psychiatr Nurses Assoc [2000]. 6, 3-10.)
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 | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".