Hermeneutic‐phenomenology: providing living knowledge for nursing practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phenomenological approach has gained popularity among nurse researchers as an alternative investigative method to those used in the natural sciences. As more nurse scholars and nurse researchers utilize phenomenology as a research approach, it becomes critical to examine the implications this may have for nursing knowledge development and for the utilization of that knowledge in practice. In this paper, an examination of the results of phenomenological inquiry is presented and compared with the types of knowledge considered important for nursing by Carper and White. It is clear that phenomenology contributes to empirical, moral, aesthetic, personal, and socio-political knowledge development. Its contribution is not in developing predictive and prescriptive theory, but in revealing the nature of human experience. Although interpretive inquiry, such as hermeneutic phenomenology, does not prescribe action for use in clinical practice, it does influence a thoughtful reflective attentive practice by its revealing of the meanings of human experience.
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 | 0.019 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".