Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing concern about lack of compassion in nursing. Impact of Injuries, which is the parent study (Kendrick et al, 2011) of this independent nested study, collected patient accounts of care received by physiotherapists and nurses. While physiotherapists were generally described as caring, nursing care was less consistent and sometimes uncaring. This embedded study conducted semi-structured interviews in 2012 with 11 physiotherapists and 12 nurses in four English hospitals to obtain perspectives on the provision of care. Physiotherapists presented a distinct identity with caring both integral to the role and sustained by structural and organisational factors. Nurses had a diffuse identity with limited control within a medical and business model of care. They appeared 'under siege' and were nostalgic for caring, which was frequently subordinate to other demands. Both nurses and physiotherapists faced challenges but nurses felt the context of their work was not conducive to caring. This article draws comparisons between these professions and makes informed recommendations to improve nursing practice and patient care.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".