Examining our privileges and oppressions: incorporating an intersectionality paradigm into nursing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.093 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".