MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157090384 · doi:10.1177/0894318403260471

Nursing: Whose Discipline is it Anyway?

2004· review· en· W2157090384 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 · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsCamosun CollegeIsland HealthUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipLimitingNursingNurse educationSociologyNursing practiceNursing researchPosition (finance)DisciplinePsychologyMedicinePolitical scienceSocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nursing is variously described as a profession, a discipline, an occupation. The meanings we assign to such words and the expectations, demands, and responsibilities that each reveals to and/or exacts from those of us privileged to call ourselves registered nurse provides a splendid arena for viewing the struggle of nursing as an intellectual endeavor embedded in its own distinctive knowledge base, experiences, purposes, and values. Currently, pressure exerted within and without nursing to adopt the self-limiting potential and subordinated position that a professional discipline orientation and applied degree education confer on nursing is mounting. This article examines the relationships among historical events, contemporary influences, and confounding definitions that are integral to how we choose to guide and shape the evolution of nursing scholarship, practice, and education. The authors contend that the full significance of these relationships must be appreciated if nursing is to advance as a scholarly academic discipline and practice profession.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.354 · 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