Feminist and Queer Phenomenology: A Framework for Perinatal Nursing Practice, Research, and Education for Advancing Lesbian Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A queer phenomenology would involve an orientation toward queer, a way to inhabit the world that gives “support” to those whose lives and loves make them appear oblique, strange, and out of place. (Ahmed, 2006 Ahmed, S. 2006. Queer phenomenology. Orientations, objects, others, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) The climate of the health care system is a reflection of society, which often hesitates to support individuals who choose paths other than those, that are heteronormatively constructed. Consequences of such limited directedness include fear, misunderstanding, avoidance, and discrimination on the part of nurses toward individuals involved in same-sex partnerships (Goldberg, 2005/2006 Goldberg, L. S. 2005. Introductory engagement within the perinatal nursing relationship. Nursing Ethics, 12: 401–413. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). A feminist and queer phenomenological framework offers an approach for perinatal nurses to advance lesbian health and, in particular, lesbian couples’ experiences of birthing, in the context of nursing practice, research, and education.
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 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 | 0.033 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".