Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief This essay provides a critical exploration of discourses of social justice in nursing. It examines commitments to social justice in the work of international nursing scholars and in professional codes of ethics in international nursing organizations. The analysis touches on salient conversations in philosophy, relating these ways of knowing to social justice as an ethical pattern in nursing practice. On the basis of this analysis, the discussion explores questions of professional formation in nursing, noticing when commitments to social justice are taken up or evaded in different models of professionalism. In concluding comments, implications of democratic professionalism are explored for professional formation in nursing, arguing for teaching, learning, and knowledge projects that contribute to social justice in our democracy. Based on an analysis of discourses of social justice, this article explores questions of professional formation in nursing, noticing when commitments to social justice are taken up or evaded in different models of professionalism. In concluding comments, implications of democratic professionalism are explored for professional formation in nursing, arguing for teaching, learning and knowledge projects that contribute to social justice. www.advancesinnursingscience.com
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".