MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321440682 · doi:10.1097/ans.0b013e3181eb4157

Interpretation

2010· review· en· W2321440682 on OpenAlexaff
Dilmi Aluwihare‐Samaranayake

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Nursing Science · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterpreting and Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationPraxisInterpretation (philosophy)EpistemologySociologyPoliticsEmpiricismMeaning (existential)PsychologyLinguisticsPhilosophyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this article was to illustrate that interpretation is a political and social practice and to explore the conceptualization of interpretation as a political and social practice within the discipline of nursing. A critical view of language, meaning, and interpretation reveals that words are influenced by sociopolitical context and empiricism is engulfed in interpretations derived from the environment. The deliberations reveal that how we perceive our nature of being in the world affects our interpretations. In contrast, from a critical theory lens the discussion reveals that interpretation becomes a process of penetration of different contexts and of an evolutionary praxis effecting transformation.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.581
Teacher spread0.512 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Nursing ScienceSame topicInterpreting and Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207