International Family Nursing Association: toolkit of resources for caring for refugee/migrating families
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report the experience of the International Family Nursing Association (IFNA) Practice Committee on developing a Toolkit of resources to care for refugee/migrating families as a response to the global migration and refugee crisis. METHOD: Qualitative and descriptive study, experience report, which describes the development of a toolkit of resources for caring for refugee/migrating families. RESULTS: The development of this Toolkit of resources to care for refugee/migrating families is supported by current literature related to family-centered evaluation and intervention, culturally sensitive practice based on family strengths; statements of positioning on immigrant and refugee families; and nursing and health organizations that addressed the health of the refugee family. CONCLUSIONS: The dissemination of the resources available in the Toolkit can support nursing practices, drive qualified approaches to assessments and interventions, capable of promoting family resilience as they adapt, providing well-being, and leading to the healing of traumas and adversities experienced by families in the process of migration or refuge.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it