Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of staff nurse empowerment is often evoked in dialogue concerning the nature of nurses' practice in improving their work environments. Nurse empowerment has been the subject of vigorous discussion in healthcare settings, and has been researched largely through an organizational perspective. In this paper, nurse empowerment is analyzed by drawing upon a critical science approach as an alternative theoretical lens. Power is integral to empowerment, and occurs in the context of relations of power. The author uses the ideas of Michel Foucault to address the different ways in which power relations shape nurses' experiences in the workplace. Foucault conceptualizes power as a form of power that envelops staff nurses and nurse managers and, more specifically, as a set of disciplinary techniques. Rather than discussing power solely as a repressive force, Foucault identifies the productive aspects of power. His analysis of where power resides suggests a thought-provoking approach to staff nurse empowerment that has the potential to change nurses' practice through points of resistance, and thus has implications for improving the quality of nurses' work life.
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 | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.075 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| 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".