MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2509835743 · doi:10.1097/ans.0000000000000143

The “As-If” World of Nursing Practice

2016· article· en· W2509835743 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Quinn Grundy, Ruth E. Malone

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Nursing Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of California, San FranciscoAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality
KeywordsMythologyEthnographyNursingNursing practicePsychologySociologyMedicineHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The "as-if" world of nursing is a well-constructed, institutionally preserved and defended myth that asserts clinicians who are "just nurses" do not make decisions in the absence of "doctor's orders." Drawing on data from an ethnography exploring the interactions between nurses and industry, we explore the finding that many nurses did not identify as "decision makers" and were mystified by the attention of sales representatives. Many nurses experienced marketing as benign as there was no "decision" to sway. Nursing must deconstruct the "as-if" nondecisional myth by confronting conflicts of interest and owning fully its rightful clinical and advocacy roles. www.advancesinnursingscience.com.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.282
GPT teacher head0.640
Teacher spread0.358 · 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.

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 venueAdvances in Nursing ScienceSame topicPharmaceutical industry and healthcareFrench-language works237,207