Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses how Merleau-Ponty’s existential phenomenology may serve as the lens and theoretical frame in a qualitative research study of the lived experience of patients, their families, and nurses during critical illness in the intensive care unit. Merleau-Ponty's unique existential concepts of corporeality, spatiality, temporality, and relationality provide a useful foundation and serve as a unifying philosophy of science in understanding this nursing phenomenon that is grounded in philosophical beliefs about humans, and the holistic nature of professional nursing that is not amenable to experimental investigative research methods. The research sheds light on the patients, families, and nurses’ embodied temporal, spatial, and relational horizons, and reveals a new conception of critical illness that will provide caregivers with knowledge about effective humanistic, and more holistic care, that opens new ways for coping amongst patients and their families, as well as caregiving possibilities for the nurses. Findings from this qualitative inquiry can help contribute knowledge about family engagement that would impact the provision of care in the intensive care unit, thus improving patient, family, and organizational outcomes.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".