MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099923831 · doi:10.1177/0898010114538320

Passionate Scholarship or Academic Safety

2014· article· en· W2099923831 on OpenAlexaff
Lyn Merryfeather

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Holistic Nursing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHolismScholarshipEngineering ethicsIdeal (ethics)SociologyEpistemologyPsychologyPedagogyPhilosophyPolitical scienceLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Are we passionate scholars or is academic safety something to which we aspire? Do we teach our students one thing and practice another? Are some forms of scholarship more acclaimed than others, some methodologies more acceptable? What are the ethical implications in these various questions? In this article, I outline my experiences, both as a student researcher and as an educator, that have brought me to ask these things. Holism is an ideal that many nursing students are taught and encouraged to bring to their practice, and yet holism does not seem, in many instances, to be supported in academia or in bedside practice. I suggest the possible causes for these difficulties and propose solutions. I suggest that the bedrock of ethical practice, both in the academy and with patients, is to bring all of who we are, the alchemic mystery of holism, to everything we do.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.173
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.348 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Holistic NursingSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207