Critical theory: critical methodology to disciplinary foundations in nursing.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasingly in the nursing literature, theorists have examined the use of critical theory in nursing (especially as understood by Habermas) and many have advocated it as a research approach to guide knowledge development in nursing. There has been limited analysis, however, of critical theory's broader foundational implications for the discipline of nursing. Part of the difficulty stems from a failure to differentiate between the implications of Habermas's earlier work on knowledge interests and his later theory of communicative action. In this paper, Habermas's critical theory is explored along two dimensions: as a metatheoretical account of a methodology of critical theory as a research tradition; and as a theory of communicative action whose dialogical and normative assumptions have profound implications for a postfoundationalist grounding of nursing as a discipline and professional practice. The authors argue that critical theory is necessary for nursing and may be sufficient as a paradigmatic philosophical base for the discipline.
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 | 0.026 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".