MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Oppression: A Concept Analysis and Implications for Nurses and Nursing

2011· review· en· W1915708595 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

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.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.126
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