Nursesââ¬â¢ Engagement with Feminist/Poststructuralist Theory: (Im)Possibility, Fear and Hope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social theories offer meaningful ways for understanding and connecting to the world and describe the possibilities for changing and influencing the world. However, the difficulty of engaging with the language and assumptions of theory should not go unappreciated. Despite the relevance that feminist/poststructuralist theories have for women and other marginalized groups, these theories can often be excluded from the set of discourses available to and engaged by some of these groups. Nurses are among the groups of women who have not included feminist theories in their approach to understanding the world in which they work. An engagement with feminist theory threatens to painfully disrupt an apparently natural and taken-for-granted perspective on social relationships in nursesA¢â¬â¢ working environments. Yet, if nurses fail to seek and engage with theoretical perspectives that can open up possibilities, they will be perpetually stymied in their attempts to change their social circumstances. Theory can offer a useful way of giving individual nurses an opportunity to move from what is to what could be.
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 | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".