Bored Together: The Friendship of “Filling Time” in Child and Youth Mental Health Nursing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, I argue that, on locked child and youth mental health units, friendships can form between patients and nurses. This may occur due to the confined nature of such settings, which gives rise to feelings of boredom. Boredom can be thought of as a stimulus or meaning deficit. Phenomenologically, it may be experienced as a dragging of time, restlessness, and a desire to do something else. Nurses often feel responsible for relieving the boredom of patients by engaging them in conversation or recreational activities. However, this ignores the fact that nurses experience boredom as well. One understanding of friendship, in this context, could be that friendship starts with a mutual understanding of the boredom of the other. Friendship is conventionally frowned upon by nursing regulators. However, in this paper, I argue that their views are based on a particular kind of friendship derived from the Western tradition—that which has normative characteristics and is incompatible with hierarchy. Using both aspects of Western and Confucian thought, I challenge this perspective, arguing that aspects of friendship do indeed show up in nurse-patient relationships and that they are not necessarily problematic. Using examples from my own practice, I aim to show that nurses and patients may involve each other symbiotically in shared meaning-making, especially in confined spaces such as the mental health ward. Nurses and patients mutually participate in a filling of “empty time,” demonstrating that even in confinement, there is the possibility of friendship.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".