Mapping Trust in Nurses with Dimensions of Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This scoping review examines the concept of trust in nursing and its potential application in developing trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI) for healthcare. Recognizing nurses as highly trusted professionals, the study explores how attributes contributing to trust in nursing can inform AI development. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute framework, the review synthesizes literature on patients' perceptions of nurses' trustworthiness and compares these with desired qualities in trustworthy AI. Preliminary findings suggest that nursing's trust-inducing actions could offer valuable insights for implementing trust-enhancing features in AI. This approach aims to bring innovative insights into the nature of trust and contribute to creative solutions to develop trustworthy AI in healthcare. By aligning AI development with principles of trust observed in nursing, the review proposes novel strategies for creating more ethical and accepted AI systems in healthcare 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 | 0.012 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".