Bibliographic record
Abstract
I sygepleje henvises der til standarder, anbefalinger og forskningsbaserede tiltag. På trods heraf oplever patienter ofte mangel på kvalitet i relationen og kommunikationen med den sundhedsprofessionelle. Artiklen har fokus på formidling af vigtige kommunikative punkter, som den sundhedsprofessionelle kan anvende i praksis. Det er intentionen at synliggøre, hvordan der gennem patientinvolvering og udvikling af relationelle kompetencer kan etableres en fælles vej og skabes et anerkendende partnerskab med patienten. Patientens problem skal udforskes ved at lytte til hans grundfortælling, for rækkevidden af det, vi siger, er ofte langt større, end vi forestiller os. Gennem inddragelse af Calgary-Cambridge Guiden og eksempler fra praksis demonstreres, hvordan sundhedsprofessionelle kan skabe vilkår for sygepleje af høj kvalitet. Dermed søger artiklen at argumentere for, at relationelle og kommunikative kompetencer ikke er noget, man har, men noget man kan og skal trænes i.
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 | 0.011 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.225 | 0.131 |
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".