MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Use of Postcolonialism in the Nursing Domain

2008· article· en· W2043196895 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Nursing Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Competency in Health Care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyContext (archaeology)Postcolonialism (international relations)PoliticsColonialismNursing literatureSociologyNursing theoryPerspective (graphical)NursingEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceMEDLINEMedicineSocial scienceAlternative medicineHistoryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it