MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413115665 · doi:10.12927/cjnl.2025.27658

Relational Coaching for Leadership and Team Development in Long-Term Care: An Appreciative Inquiry Approach

2025· article· en· W4413115665 on OpenAlex
Shoshana Helfenbaum, Daniel Galessiere, Christina E. Gallucci, Raquel M. Meyer

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing leadership · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAppreciative Inquiry and Organizational Change
Canadian institutionsBaycrest Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoachingAppreciative inquiryPsychologyTeam developmentLeadership developmentIntervention (counseling)Medical educationApplied psychologyPedagogyKnowledge managementPublic relationsMedicinePolitical scienceComputer sciencePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: A relational coaching intervention in long-term care (LTC) studied leaders' self-perceptions and behaviours as champions of applying learning in team practice. METHODOLOGY: education. RESULTS: A positive influence on confidence and commitment indicators was found, and key leader behaviours were identified. DISCUSSION: Goal-directed, relational leadership coaching in LTC supports team practice improvement and is accelerated by the implementation of relational leadership practices. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING LEADERSHIP: Using relational coaching can improve teams' experiences and outcomes of applying learning in practice.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.391
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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.258
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.055 · 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