MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2402100328 · doi:10.1111/nup.12128

New sophistry: self‐deception in the nursing academy

2016· article· en· W2402100328 on OpenAlexafffund
Bernie Garrett

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Philosophy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsDeceptionMysticismEpistemologyIdeologyMetaphysicsArgument (complex analysis)PsychologyHealth careNursing Interventions ClassificationPsychological interventionSociologyNursingMedicineSocial psychologyPhilosophyLawPolitical sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this essay, I advance an argument against the expansion and acceptance of postmodern metaphysical antirealist ideologies in the development of nursing theory in North America. I suggest mystical theoretical explanations of care, the rejection of empirical epistemology, and a return to divinity in nursing represent an intellectual dead end, as these ideas do little to help resolve real-world health issues and also negate the need for the academic discrimination of bad ideas. I examine some of the philosophical foundations of nursing theory and deconstruct some of the more preternatural theories that have become established as the dominant conventional wisdom in the academy. It is argued that this can be characterized as a form of self-deception, and overall has had a negative impact on advancement of the nursing profession and public health care. Reasons behind the widespread acceptance of these irrational theoretical stances in nursing and the ongoing support for mystical therapeutic interventions are explored.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.743

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.293 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing PhilosophySame topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207