L'experience d'hospitalisation des Franco-Manitobains et des Franco-Manitobaines adultes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing research in health care relating to Franco-Manitobans has focused primarily on access to health services. The hospitalized experience of this cultural group has not been systematically studied. The purpose of this focused-ethnographic study was to discover and explore the meaning of the experience of hospitalization of adult Franco-Manitobans. Herberg's conceptual framework for transcultural nursing guided the study. It features four central concepts of the discipline of nursing: people, environment, health and nursing. Twelve Franco-Manitoban adults were interviewed in hospital and after discharge using a semi-structured interview guide. Seven key informants in the Francophne community were also interviewed to provide context and background for the study. Data analysis yielded seven thematic areas, including the experience of hospitalization, communication, spirituality, comfort issues, integration of instructions, the notion of "Chez nous", self care and perceptions of illness. The findings revealed that the experience of hospitalization was influenced by a range of factors related to language, family and community, spirituality, and the illness process, including limitations imposed by the illness and feelings of vulnerability. Implications based on the research findings for nursing practice, education, research and health care delivery are addressed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".