Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author was afforded opportunity during her doctoral studies to compile and reflect upon the scholarly work of nurse researcher, Dr Janice Morse. Morse's refinement and development of patient-centred, empirically based concepts and theories, and her mastery of a diverse research repertoire, are an indisputable contribution to nursing knowledge. The author delineates four ways by which Morse's work contributes to nursing's disciplinary body of knowledge: (i) the consistent focus on the nurse-patient domain; (ii) the multiplicity of knowledge forms; (iii) the promotion of paradigm integration and methodological pluralism; and (iv) the predominance of prescriptive theories. Additionally, conjecture is put forth regarding the philosophical assumptions underpinning Morse's work. Morse serves as an excellent role model for nurse researchers who strive to ensure that nursing theories are amenable to clinical application, to research investigation and to utilization as a pedagogical tool.
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 | 0.033 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".