Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nurses are a practical lot. Like other practitioners, we may brush aside the philosophical as hypothetical or irrelevant. To say that something is a philosophical question often means that it is too abstract to be of consequence. I want to rehabilitate the term philosophical by describing the goals of three different philosophical styles of inquiry. (1) Critical thinking evaluates theories, research, and practice. (2) Creative and edifying philosophies generate new possibilities. In nursing, for example, new understandings and possibilities for care and ways of facilitating recovery, healing, and health-care delivery require creative or edifying philosophies. (3) Articulation thinking and research gives language to and illustrates experiential learning and practical knowledge of patients' families or of community nurses or other health-care practitioners. The goal is to articulate meanings and knowledge embedded in everyday lived worlds that may be poorly described or lack an adequate public language. Unlike categorizing and naming things for classification or diagnostic systems, articulation seeks to illustrate how commonly held meanings, qualitative distinctions, and practices function in everyday life. Critical Thinking Analytic philosophy has traditionally been concerned with critically evaluating thinking and therefore primarily with epistemology - that is, how and what we can know. As members of a practice discipline we need to critically evaluate nursing assessments, interventions, and outcomes, and to critically evaluate theories of disease, illness, recovery, health promotion, development, and so on. Analytic philosophy offers
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 | 0.098 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.139 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.040 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".