Intersections of the arts and nursing knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The arts and nursing are profoundly connected. While the relationship between nursing and art has persisted over time, the majority of nursing scholarship on the arts has historically centered upon the art of nursing practice and the cultivation and application of aesthetic knowing. However, there is a burgeoning use of arts-based strategies is nursing education, research, and practice. Correspondingly, there is a need to understand how such approaches can uniquely contribute knowledge to the nursing discipline in order to support arts-integration for nursing scholars. We structure our inquiry into arts' contributions according to two dominant methods of engaging with arts-based strategies: knowing about (e.g., phenomena) vis-à-vis art-viewing, and knowing through (e.g., embodied knowing) vis-à-vis art-making. In doing so, we explore critical contributions of art to nursing research and educational practices, including arts' capacity to augment traditional research and communication approaches, democratize the research space, challenge issues of representation, and facilitate education, dissemination, and reflexivity.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.079 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".