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
This paper challenges nurses to join together as a collective in order to facilitate ongoing analysis of the issues that arise for nurses and patients when nursing care is harnessed for health care efficiencies. It is a call for nurses to respond with a collective strategy through which we can 'talk back' and 'act back' to the powerful rationality of current thinking and practices. The paper uses examples from an institutional ethnographic (IE) research project to demonstrate how dominant approaches to understanding nursing position nurses to overlook how we activate practices of reform that reorganize how we nurse. The paper then describes two classroom strategies taken from my work with students in undergraduate and graduate programs. The teaching strategies I describe rely on the theoretical framework that underpin the development of an IE analysis. Taken into the classroom (or into other venues of nursing activism) the tools of IE can be adapted to inform a pedagogical approach that supports nurses to develop an alternate analysis to what is happening in our work.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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