MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1607556411 · doi:10.1111/jnu.12101

Peace and Power: A Theory of Emancipatory Group Process

2014· article· en· W1607556411 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Scholarship · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Conflict Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPraxisPower (physics)DialecticEmpowermentProcess (computing)Relevance (law)SociologyConstruct (python library)PsychologySocial psychologyPolitical scienceEpistemologyLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To present the theoretical basis for the group process known as "Peace and Power." ORGANIZING CONSTRUCT: A dialectic between two dominant forms of power-peace powers and power-over powers-forms the basis for a synthesis that yields an emancipatory group process characterized by praxis, empowerment, awareness, cooperation, and evolvement for individuals and groups. METHODS: Critical analysis of prevailing competitive group dynamics and the ideals of cooperative group dynamics was conducted to project the potential for achieving group interactions that yield profound changes in the direction of justice, empowerment, and well-being for all. CONCLUSIONS: The theoretical framework of "Peace and Power" is consistent with characteristics of emancipatory integrity that are vital for social change. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The processes of "Peace and Power" can be used to create peaceful, cooperative interactions among nurses, with other health professionals, with patients and families, and in communities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it