The Concept of Intentionality in Human Science Nursing Theories
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
Nursing as a human science focuses on life and health as humanly experienced. Intentionality is a philosophical idea of particular significance to nursing as a human science, particularly within Parse’s theory of human becoming and Watson’s theory of human caring. These two theorists’ interpretations of intentionality are explored in relation to their respective theories and the implications for research and practice. A persistent thread in nursing discourse positions nursing as a human science—that is, one that focuses on life and health as humanly experienced. In human science disciplines, human beings are viewed as the subjects of their own lives, rather than as mere objects or things, as is the case in the natural sciences. My purpose in this column is to explore intentionality as a philosophical idea of particular significance to theoretical accounts of nursing as a human science. Before beginning, it is important to note that not all nurse theorists whose works could be considered aligned with the human sciences explicitly address the notion of intentionality within their writings (see for instance, Newman, 1994; Rogers, 1970). However, the notion of intentionality is implied in, or at least, consistent with, their works and those of their disciples. As noted elsewhere (Pilkington, 2000), the word intentionality has been in use since medieval times and there are various definitions of the concept in the literature, reflecting different philosophical paradigms or worldviews. In this column, I explore the notion as it appears in two nursing perspectives, Parse’s (1981, 1998) theory of human becoming and Watson’s (1985, 1999, 2005) theory of human caring. Both of these theorists have spoken about how their theoretical thinking grew out of their own life experiences as well as through engaging with the world of ideas (Fuld Institute for Technology in Nursing Education, 1997a, 1997b). And so, I begin by identifying key theoretical influences that shaped their thinking about intentionality. In addition, I will explore
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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