Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although theoretical perspectives may be traced from theory to everyday life, the reverse is also true. In this article, the author explores how subdisciplines within nursing perceive and approach the clinical problem of incontinence in elderly persons. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship among the perception of clinical problems, various theoretical perspectives considered pertinent to the research to resolve these problems, different approaches to the research, and different research 'products.' APPROACH: In everyday life, we may trace beliefs, opinions, and behaviors back to their theoretical perspectives. The author uses a fictitious everyday conversation among 3 nurse researchers and a clinician as they discuss a scenario from literature regarding incontinence in the homecare of the elderly and suggests various research alternatives to approach the problem. RESULTS: Although nursing subscribes to a holistic perspective of the person, the scope of a holistic perspective cannot be accommodated within a single research approach. Specialization in nursing results in various priorities for approaching the problem of incontinence, resulting in different research agendas, different goals, and different outcomes. DISCUSSION: These divergent perspectives-arising within a single discipline-compete for research funding, for political attention and for policy recommendations.
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 | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".