Book Review: Doane, G. H., & Varcoe, C. (2005). <i>Family Nursing as Relational Inquiry: Developing Health-Promoting Practice</i> . Philadelphia: Lippincott
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family Nursing as Relational Inquiry is a compelling book. Enriched by numerous stories and learning activities and by the use of the first person voices of the authors, it explores the practice of family nursing from a rela-tional perspective. As a textbook, the writing is informed by a commitment to constructive developmental pedagogy (Magolda, 1999), a pedagogy that commits to creating learning opportunities to address not only content but also the process of knowledge creation within everyday nursing practice. The chapters that follow are consistent with these goals, presenting practice in all its ambiguity and complexity. Features and learning activities include chapter notes, “try it out ” and “this week in practice ” activities to bring ideas to everyday life. Other major ideas are beautifully highlighted in sto-ries and “to illustrate ” sections, features that are particularly popular with the 3rd year undergraduate students with whom I have used the book as one option in a family nursing course.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.116 | 0.119 |
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".