MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117830039 · doi:10.1177/08943180222108705

Nursing Knowledge and Human Science Revisited: Practical and Political Considerations

2002· review· en· W2117830039 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Science Quarterly · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Competency in Health Care
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeDialogical selfNursing theoryPoliticsSociologyMeaning (existential)Human scienceHuman conditionEpistemologyHealth careNursingPsychologyMedicineMEDLINESocial sciencePolitical scienceLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The human science tradition is rooted in human freedom and meaning and oriented toward narrative and dialogical methods. In the past 10 years, human science nursing has grown but the opposition has also increased. Whereas other health disciplines are turning to the study of lived experience, nursing on the whole may be turning away. This article updates progress in human science, including works related to major nursing theories. The authors address practical and political considerations related to language, community, theory-laden knowledge, and tolerance for diversity. The authors conclude that the suppression of human science imperils nursing as a practice of being-with, witnessing, and cocreating quality of life, lived by nurses. But theories live in the actions of those who support them; thus, any place where people seek human care has the potential to support a human science-based nursing practice.

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.024
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.364 · 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