MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2418804378 · doi:10.1177/0894318416648782

The Two Nursing Disciplinary Scientific Revolutions

2016· article· en· W2418804378 on OpenAlexaff
Kan Koffi, Jacqueline Fawcett

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Science Quarterly · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisciplineConceptualizationSociologySociology of scientific knowledgeNursing researchNursingEngineering ethicsEpistemologyPsychologyMedicineSocial sciencePhilosophyEngineeringLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this essay is to share Kan Koffi's ideas about scientific revolutions in the discipline of nursing. Koffi has proposed that the works of Florence Nightingale and Martha E. Rogers represent two scientific revolutions in nursing as a learned discipline. The outcome of these two scientific revolutions is a catalyst for critical disciplinary and paradigmatic debate about the universal conceptualization of nursing's distinctive professional and scientific knowledge.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.010
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.333 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing Science QuarterlySame topicNursing Education, Practice, and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207