MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113301515 · doi:10.1177/0894318410362544

Boundaries and the Culture of Theorizing in Nursing

2010· article· en· W2113301515 on OpenAlexaff
Gweneth Hartrick Doane, Colleen Varcoe

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Science Quarterly · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingSociologyPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this dialogue we direct attention to the way in which each of us (including you the reader) is a knowing practitioner, examining how our ontologies and the cultures we live and create are (and are not) shaping theorizing and ultimately family nursing practice. Questions we explore include: How might closer attention to ontology enhance theorizing in family nursing and healthcare? How might we enlist boundaries and differences as potential lines of joining? How might we engage in theorizing as a unitary act--living the values and ideals we espouse and aspire toward?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.086
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.100
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0860.100
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0220.231
Scholarly communication0.0390.039
Open science0.0050.025
Research integrity0.0070.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.456 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing Science QuarterlySame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207