EMBRACING DIVERSITY : TOWARD A MORALLY INCLUSIVE PRACTICE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary goal of this chapter is to assist nurses to engage in a morally inclusive practice. A morally inclusive practice celebrates what people have in common as well as their differences and involves the action of whole heartedly embracing diversity. Diversity reflects variations in belief systems and ways of living and includes many things such as: ethnicity, culture, gender, sexual orientation, age, religious and spiritual beliefs, socioeconomic position and health status. Culture is more that ethnicity and permeates everything that we do. Bullying is a negative but harsh reality of the culture of nursing. Witnesses of bullying are asked to intervene and not to participate in gossip. Returning kindness when confronted by aggression and standing up for oneself are presented as positive ways to combat vertical violence in the profession. Cultural competence is promoted as a way to help nurses when they are confronted with cultural issues. Rigid world views and ethnocentrism, or the view that one’s belief system or culture’s way of doing things is the right and natural way, are identified as barriers to implementing cultural competence into practice. Canadian residential schools are presented as a historical result of ethnocentrism that negatively impacted hundreds of Aboriginals. Cultural relativism is put forward as the polar opposite to ethnocentrism and is akin to building bridges rather than barriers. It is the attitude that other ways of doing things are different but equally valid. The practice of the ethic of care aligns closely with cultural relativism.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".