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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
\n\t\t\t\t\tCaring is neither simply a set of attitudes or theories, nor does it comprise all that nurses do. Nursing care is determined by the way nurses use knowledge and skills to appreciate the uniqueness of the person they are caring for (changing the care noun into a caring verb). The purpose of this article is to present a range of contemporary nurse theorists' ideas on caring and to examine these ideas using the backdrop of nursing as practiced in both Australia and Canada to demonstrate a range of national and international similarities and theoretical beliefs. Caring relationships set up the conditions of trust that enable the one receiving the care to accept the help offered, underpinning the nurse-patient relationship or the therapeutic relationship. Caring is always specific and relational such as that found in the nurse-patient relationship. We believe that caring theory has much to offer nursing practice worldwide. Caring must be considered in the caring context because the nature of the caring relationship is central to most nursing interventions. Nurses need to be able to actually practice caring rather than just theorize about it-using caring theories to inform their practice.<br />\n\t\t\t\t
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
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 it