The nature of care in light of Emmanuel Levinas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The discipline of nursing is still struggling with the differences that need to be clearly defined between the notions of care and nursing care. To be able to clarify this distinction, agreement must first be reached on the meaning of care itself. The present article proposes a conception of care in light of the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas (1906-1995). This philosopher's thought throws considerable light on the ontology of care, thanks especially to his focus on the deeper implications of human encounter. A profound sense of responsibility towards the other enables Levinas to bring out such dimensions of the concept of care as the relation involved, the feeling of affection, and the interventions. We examine here what these entail regarding nursing care.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Philosophical analysis of the concept of care in nursing via Levinas; disciplinary theory, not a study of research practice.
The article develops a philosophical account of care in nursing.
Philosophical account of care via Levinas for nursing; nursing ontology, not research about research.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".