MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Examining our privileges and oppressions: incorporating an intersectionality paradigm into nursing

2011· article· en· W1806291854 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Inquiry · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Competency in Health Care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsIntersectionalityOppressionPrivilege (computing)White privilegeHegemonyPower (physics)SociologyGender studiesNursing researchNursingMedicineRacismPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An intersectionality paradigm is a means by which nurses can attend to issues of oppression and privilege within their practice and profession. Intersectionality is introduced as an essential theory to help debunk the hegemony of the 'white, middle class' perspective that often directs nursing research, practice, and education. The values and benefits of using an intersectionality paradigm in nursing are shown through recent research done with Aboriginal women. These findings contribute to an increased understanding of the importance and necessity of attending to the power relations that dominate nursing care encounters and influence the way nurses provide care. By acknowledging and responding to the presence of privilege and oppression and the associated power dynamics within the therapeutic encounter, nursing can strive further in helping to alleviate social injustices and health disparities that arise from unequal power relations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.251
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.176 · 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