MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404079719 · doi:10.1002/nop2.70081

Service Users' Perspectives on Communicating Compassion in Mental Health Practice

2024· editorial· en· W4404079719 on OpenAlexaff
Ellie Wildbore, Carmel Bond, Stephen Timmons, Ada Hui, Shane Sinclair

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Open · 2024
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmpathy and Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompassionMental healthContext (archaeology)Health careMental health serviceNursingService (business)PsychologyMental health careMedicinePsychotherapistPolitical scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When people talk about their healthcare experience, compassion is often a common ingredient in the stories they share. After a decade of healthcare reforms and research on compassion, the experience of receiving compassionate care has been shown to be important to patients and their families. Yet, there is little guidance to inform compassionate practice in the context of providing mental health care. In this article, the authors suggest three things that mental health nurses can use in their practice to demonstrate compassion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0200.025
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.421 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing OpenSame topicEmpathy and Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207