MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Oppression: A Concept Analysis and Implications for Nurses and Nursing

2011· review· en· W1915708595 on OpenAlexaff
Doris Dong, Beverley Temple

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Forum · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOppressionDehumanizationDenialStatus quoNursingSet (abstract data type)PsychologySociologySocial psychologyMedicinePolitical sciencePsychoanalysisLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To synthesize the literature's discussions on oppression and to explore its implications for nurses and nursing. SOURCE: Published literature. CONCLUSION: Oppression requires a set of norms that are determined by a dominant group and a belief of the inferiority of those outside the dominant group. The attributes of oppression are unjust treatment, the denial of rights, and the dehumanizing of individuals. Nurses and the nursing profession both work with oppressed groups and are themselves an oppressed group. By helping their oppressed and vulnerable patients resist the status quo, nurses will begin resisting their own oppressed environment, which will eventually lead to freedom for their patients and themselves.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.013
Science and technology studies0.0060.013
Scholarly communication0.0100.016
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.373 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing ForumSame topicSocial Work Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207