Resonant Disruptions: Understanding Canadian Nurses' Practice with Youth Survivors of Sexual Exploitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sexual exploitation of youth is a global concern. Youth survivors of sexual exploitation present to and require healthcare services, but most nurses do not feel effectively equipped to care for this population. There is currently little nursing literature to guide nurses in their practice with youth survivors. In this article, we report on a qualitative, hermeneutic study undertaken to explore nursing practice with youth survivors of sexual exploitation. Hermeneutics is concerned with understanding, and is a helpful way to conduct research when little is known about a topic. In this study, we asked the research question, “How might we understand nurses’ experiences of working with youth survivors of sexual exploitation?” The findings of this study are captured in three interpretations: (a) Stigma, Refuge, and Beautiful Words; (b) How to Convey Mattering to Youth Survivors of Sexual Exploitation; and (c) What Nurses Hold On to for Themselves and Their Patients. The findings point to a clear need for developing mandatory education and raising and building public awareness.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".