Bibliographic record
Abstract
A relatively small but intellectually robust strand in the Christian religion is the Reformed tradition. Especially, its Calvinist sensibilities inform this Protestant stance towards human culture in general and vocations in particular. Correspondingly, there are some small but robust contributions to academic discourse in nursing ethics. So far there has been no attempt to bring those together as a distinct approach. This article suggests such a Reformed Christian, especially Calvinist, account of nursing ethics. Central to the Reformed perspective is the notion that God is sovereign over all of creation and culture and hence that there can be no religiously or morally neutral area in human life. Consequently, nursing is not seen as professional to the extent it is based on research evidence or theoretical models, but to the extent it serves the ultimate purpose of the practice of care. In the Reformed view, this purpose is fostering the well-being of human beings in need as intrinsically valuable. Nurses are professionals who accept this responsibility, that is, the whole of expectations holding for personal qualities, conduct and outcomes, required to serve the purpose of care. As this is a moral purpose, succeeding or failing to live up to these expectations is the source of moral issues in nursing.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".