Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interconnection of theory, evidence, and practice is most often conceptualized as an epistemological enterprise. In this article, we shift the discussion from one that is solely concerned with epistemology to one that considers the significance of ontology and the way in which epistemology and ontology are intricately intertwined in every nursing action. Drawing on deconstructive hermeneutics, we contend that to understand and affect the interconnection of theory, evidence, and practice, an ontological inquiry at the action level is required. Using a nursing practice example, we illustrate the complexities of knowledge translation and how effective integration of knowledge into practice involves an embodied process of ontological inquiry and action. This inquiry process draws on theory and evidence to enlarge and imagine possibilities for action in particular moments, situations, and contexts and rests in a way-of-being in which the interconnection of theory, evidence, and practice is embodied.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".