Serving two (or more) masters: accomplishing autonomous nursing practice in chronic disease management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of professional autonomy has figured prominently in literature that addresses nursing's project of professionalization. Nursing's capacity to determine the nature and scope of its practice is related in important ways to the location of practice. Within highly structured environments such as acute-care hospitals, nurses' professional autonomy has frequently been contested yet is often implicated by nursing's elite as a necessary condition in the construction of quality work environments. Professional concerns and management practices related to retaining experienced nurses to support sustainability in healthcare delivery systems' impact on the ability of nurses to practice autonomously. Our paper focuses on the emerging field of practice of chronic disease management. We describe the complex relationships negotiated by a nurse in a theoretically autonomous practice setting as she seeks to fulfil both the requirements of a research protocol designed by physician experts representing the specialty of renal medicine, and her professional obligations to respond to the expressed needs of patients with early-stage renal disease. We utilize a case study approach to explore particular contemporary concerns that nurses in practice confront as they attempt to accomplish professional relationships with patients central to achieving prescribed medical outcomes where nursing practice, as an element of the achievement of those outcomes, is constituted as absent or unacknowledged by the medical researchers leading the project. Implications for nursing's discourses on the professional project of autonomy will be discussed.
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 | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".