Pleasure and suffering in the work of palliative oncology nurses: A reflective discursive presentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In palliative care, nursing work is characterized by the concept of suffering as nurses cope with not only the death of patients, but also challenges with interacting with families. This suffering however, if offset by the concept of pleasure, as patients find meaning in illness, pain, and in the acceptance of death as a natural process, which generates pleasure. This reflective discursive presentation is based on the theoretical framework of Dejours’ psychodynamics of work and highlights the area of palliative oncology nursing as a source of suffering and pleasure. The daily life of palliative oncology nurses, subjectivity at work, and constant interactions between psychic, social, individual, and collective factors are discussed. In their clinical practice, palliative oncology nurses break with the prescribed way of engaging in care while building on various meanings of work that transforms and is also transformed. Considerations related to the need for teaching and research activities to examine pleasure and suffering in palliative oncology nursing is presented.
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 | 0.024 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".