The potential contributions of critical social theory to nursing science.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a theoretical and philosophical orientation to science, critical social theory (CST) is increasingly used in nursing inquiry, theory, and practice to address oppressive sociopolitical conditions influencing health and health care. Although the emancipatory focus of CST is well aligned with nursing's social mandate, the examination of ontological and epistemological assumptions underlying CST reveal important incongruities in relation to the unique epistemological requirements of nursing science for both generalizable and particular knowledge. This article examines the potential contributions of CST to nursing science and areas of philosophical compatibility and incongruity. The author argues that the most significant contribution of CST to nursing science may be achieved by critiquing the fundamental ideologies upon which nursing knowledge is developed. By interrogating these ideological assumptions, and by maintaining the integrity of our diverse epistemological requirements, CST can advance nursing science towards progressive, emancipatory objectives.
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 | 0.036 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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".