MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405262909 · doi:10.1177/08943184241291567

Thoughts About Stressors: A Neuman Systems Model Perspective

2024· article· en· W4405262909 on OpenAlexaff
Jacqueline Fawcett, Betsy M. McDowell, Sarah J. Beckman, DeLyndia Green-Laughlin, Anna Helewka, Diane Breckenridge

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Science Quarterly · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicStress and Burnout Research
Canadian institutionsDouglas College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStressorPerspective (graphical)PsychologyIntervention (counseling)PerceptionInterpretation (philosophy)Clinical psychologyComputer sciencePsychiatryNeuroscienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this essay, we discuss the definition and interpretation of stressors from the perspective of the Neuman Systems Model. A distinctive aspect is the emphasis on the client system's perception of each stressor as beneficial (positive), noxious (negative), or both beneficial and noxious. The client system's perceptions of the stressors determine the wellness goals that are needed and guide the selection of necessary prevention-as-intervention strategies for achieving those goals. Several examples of stressors are included, as are two case studies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.391 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing Science QuarterlySame topicStress and Burnout ResearchFrench-language works237,207