Knowing the nurse practitioner: dominant discourses shaping our horizons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine the various discourses, particularly the dominant instrumental and economic discourses that have brought the phenomena of the nurse practitioner (NP) into being. It is proposed that NPs have been constituted as an object of nature and therefore understood metaphorically as a tool or instrument within the health care system to be used efficiently and effectively. Heidegger's philosophical analysis of the question concerning technology is used to argue that our current ways of knowing the NP through these discourses, with their emphasis on calculative logic, have resulted from our modern view of the essence of technology. It is also argued that there is now a need to shape our horizons concerning the NP in new and different ways. There is a need to engage in dialogical forms of research in order to evoke the richness and depth of what it means to be an NP, that is, to reveal the other modes of expression by which we define ourselves, understand others and nursing.
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 | 0.026 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".