Critical Assumptions: Thinking Critically About Critical Thinking
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of critical thinking has been featured in nursing literature for the past 20 years. It has been described but not defined by both the American Association of Colleges of Nursing and the National League for Nursing, although their corresponding accreditation bodies require that critical thinking be included in nursing curricula. In addition, there is no reliable or valid measurement tool for critical thinking ability in nursing. As a result, there is a lack of research support for the assumptions that critical thinking can be learned and that critical thinking ability improves clinical competence. Brookfield suggested that commitments should be made only after a period of critically reflective analysis, during which the congruence between perceptions and reality are examined. In an evidence-based practice profession, we, as nurse educators, need to ask ourselves how we can defend our assumptions that critical thinking can be learned and that critical thinking improves the quality of nursing practice, especially when there is virtually no consensus on a definition.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it