The Use of Postcolonialism in the Nursing Domain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current context in nursing requires radical political analyses to deconstruct the dominant discourses that map both the discipline and the profession. In response to the strong reaction to articles, which critically examined the evidence-based movement in health sciences, we believe that it is essential to offer a perspective that is capable of resisting the progress of such discourses, which currently prevail in nursing and thus shape our profession. We believe that the biomedical model/ideology is a form of colonial patronage that is becoming more and more influential in nursing. Such colonization takes the forms of powerful discourses (eg, evidence-based medicine) and institutional practices that pervade all spheres of nursing: practice, research, education, and administration. In previous articles, we have criticized this trend; consequently, the objective of this article is not to replicate our previous arguments but rather to demonstrate that to what extent a postcolonial approach to nursing constitutes an efficient tool for disrupting the colonizing effects of the biomedical discourse.
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 | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.089 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".