Sustainability: an evolutionary concept analysis. Exploring Nursing's role within the sustainability movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper aimed to explore the evolution of the concept of sustainability to facilitate further knowledge development in the discipline of nursing. BACKGROUND: The concept of 'sustainability' emerged in the 1950s as a result of the environmental movement. The concept has been adapted by the discipline of management and is increasingly discussed in the context of health care. The concept remains ambiguous in the discipline of nursing, resulting in a struggle to articulate the role of nursing in the sustainability movement. DESIGN: Rodgers evolutionary method of concept analysis was used. DATA SOURCES: Literature was searched from 1987-2011, including English, peer reviewed texts in the databases CINAHL and ABI/INFORM global. Two book chapters and grey literature were also included. REVIEW METHODS: References were read and analysed according to antecedents, attributes, consequences, surrogate terms and related terms. RESULTS: Defining antecedents, attributes and consequences highlight the complexity and diversity of the concept. Attributes include: sustainability as a condition of change, as process, as outcome, as dependent of multiple stakeholders, and as social consciousness. 'Sustainability' is a fragile concept highly dependent on the processes and stakeholders involved in its fruition. There is a distinct difference in the level of concept clarity between the disciplines of management and nursing. CONCLUSIONS: The complexities associated with the concept of 'Sustainability' have led to its ambiguity. Nursing must, however, work to further clarify the concept to fully understand nursing's potential role in the sustainability movement.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".