Picturing the Nurse-Person/Family/Community Process in the Year 2050
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
How will nurses relate with persons in the year 2050? And, how might technology enable or limit the nursing process with persons, families, and communities? These are the questions addressed in this column. Imaging practice in light of the technological imaginings and projections is facilitated by a possible scenario that includes robotics that not only monitor human biological processes, they also emote compassion and caring that may one day be dosed according to the latest diagnostic prescription. Three nurses in this column present their views of how nursing might evolve. Karnick, aligned with the human becoming school of thought, imagines a practice anchored in respect for humanity and quality of life and an accompanying respect for nursing knowledge and nursing work. Senesac and Sato, aligned with Roy's adaptation model, call for nurses to envision and choose the future they want to have. Clear in both perspectives is a reverence for human values and human experience and for the critical role of nursing knowledge as we move toward the not-yet of 2050.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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