Bibliographic record
Abstract
Culture Care Diversity and Universality: A Theory of Nursing edited by Madeleine M. Leininger, PhD, RN, FAAN; Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett, 2001; 448 pages, $34.95 This new release of a book published 10 years ago by the National League for Nursing is said to be the definitive and comprehensive source for Leininger's care theory. It is presented in three parts: Part I is a description of the theory and its underpinnings by Leininger. Part II, in nine chapters, describes the research method to study care, by Leininger, followed by research by various authors who have used the theory and method. Part III, in three chapters, all by Leininger, focuses on findings from research that have used the theory and the method and use of the theory in education and administration. A final chapter addresses the relevance of the care theory in projecting the future of nursing. The reissue of this book is both timely and welcome. Leininger has almost single-handedly transformed our thinking about the need for care in all domains, whether it be in nursing care, in educational programs, or administration of patient care services. As our country has become more and more multicultural, and as we have come to see the impact of events in other parts of the world on our daily lives, the theory of culture care diversity and universality assumes an importance not previously felt or understood. The author makes some attempt to place her care theory within the framework of the broader theory development enterprise in nursing and the different approaches used to develop theory. She concludes that care theory does not fit well with existing thinking on theory development approaches, and that theories in nursing have been within the logical positivist and quantitative paradigm. Culture care theory, on the other hand, was conceptualized within the qualitative discovery paradigm with largely inductive emic (people-centered) views and not from the researcher's a priori (p. 24). The central issue of concern to this reviewer is not with the utility and elegance of this theory, for it has both. It is rather, that it claims too much for itself and does not recognize the place, utility, co-existence, or indeed, complementarity, of other theoretical approaches, especially if they are developed within the positivist paradigm, and worse yet, if they demand quantitative approaches for verification of hypotheses derived from them. The book appears to claim that care theory and knowledge are sufficient to address all dimensions of 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".