Enlivening the Rhetoric of Family Nursing: "there, in the midst of things, his whole family listening"
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
At the time that this study was conducted, family nursing practice in acute care hospital settings had received little attention in nursing research and theory. A hermeneutic inquiry explored nursing practices that involved families on three cardiac medical-surgical units in two hospitals in a large urban health care region in Canada. Data for the inquiry were generated through field observations with fifteen nurses and interviews with ten nurses. Nurses supported and enabled family presence in these units but demonstrated limited evidence of deliberate family assessment and intervention. Nurses espoused a familiar rhetoric that claimed that family nursing exists because of the inevitability of encounters with family members throughout daily work. Nurses wished to appear to include family members in their practice and emphasized the importance of family teaching. Still, nurses’ ability to articulate the nature of this practice was limited. Family nursing rhetoric is explored as a potentially legitimate discourse that underlies current trends influencing nursing of families, particularly the impact of early discharge and increased reliance on family members to provide care at home during early recovery.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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