Agents of care and agents of the state: bio‐power and nursing practice
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper presents a conceptual analysis of the concept of bio-power in the context of nursing, including a critique of the widespread rhetoric that nursing is deprived of power and consequently is an apolitical agency. BACKGROUND: Traditionally, power tends to be defined in terms of repression, interdiction and punishment. On the contrary, work by Michel Foucault with regard to bio-power brings into evidence the productive and positive nature of power at the heart of society. Despite being often used by various academic and professional disciplines, the concept of bio-power is rarely cited in nursing. FINDINGS: Nursing as a profession is at the heart of bio-power in that nurses lie at the crossroads between the anatomo-political and bio-political ranges of power over life. They therefore contribute to social regulation through a vast array of diverse political technologies. Nurses are at the flexing point of the state's requirements and of individual and collective aspirations. They occupy a strategic position that allows them to act as instruments of governmentality. Consequently, nurses constitute a fully-fledged political entity making use of disciplinary technologies and responding to state ideologies. CONCLUSION: The concept of bio-power offers a rich theoretical perspective for nursing, as it questions the definition of nursing care as neutral and mainly provided according to patients' best interests.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it