Reinstating the marginalized body in nursing science: epistemological privilege and the lived life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract For nursing, the presence of bodies, the body of the patient and the body of the nurse are self‐evident. Illness, pain and disability are essentially constituted as embodied experiences. Similarly, the nurse herself, in her body, is the primary and essential instrument of her practice. What is to be refuted, is the way in which the body is taken up in nursing discourse, the way in which the body of the patient and the body of the nurse are objectified, sanitized and stripped of embodied emotion and physicality. The authors propose that the ‘scientification’ of nursing limits what counts as nursing knowledge. This limitation undermines the central experience of nursing: the subjective and embodied experience of care. A number of factors contribute to the marginalization of the body and of embodied experience in nursing science. By privileging objective data and placing subjective experience outside the brackets of dominant scientific knowledge, practice disciplines such as nursing can become marginalized. To combat this marginalization, nursing and other professions have sought to situate themselves within the dominant frameworks. The result is that bodies are objectified, and person, practice, and embodied experience are subordinated to rational empirical intervention.
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 | 0.025 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.169 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".