Buddhist thought and nursing: a hermeneutic exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper I lay out the ground for a creative dialogue between Buddhist thought and contemporary nursing. I start from the observation that in tracing an arc from the existential human experience of suffering to finding compassionate responses to suffering in everyday practice Buddhist thought already appears to present significant affinities with nursing as a practice discipline. I discuss some of the complexities of entering into a cross-cultural dialogue, which is already well under way in the working out of Western forms of Buddhism, and which is beginning to be reflected in nursing literature. I introduce philosophical hermeneutics as a useful framework for elaborating an open and constructive exchange. I then discuss key Mahayana Buddhist concepts of emptiness and two truths that lead to a dynamic and open way of understanding reality and responding in the world. I turn to examples of original texts to give a flavour of the varied and distinctive forms of literature in the Buddhist tradition. This is intended partly to keep the reader alert to cultural difference (from a Western standpoint, that is) while exploring the creative potential of Buddhist thought. Hermeneutics again provides a framework for interpretation. This paper establishes a philosophical ground for a critical and creative dialogue between Buddhist thought 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 | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".