How Activism Features in the Career Lives of Four Generations of Canadian Nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent nursing research using a critical feminist lens challenges the prevailing view of political inertia in nursing. This comparative life history study using a critical feminist lens explores the relevance of activism with four generations of Canadian nurses. Purposeful sampling of Ontario nurses resulted in 40 participants who were diverse in terms of generation, practice setting, and activist practice. Interviews and focus groups were completed with the sample of Ontario registered nurses or undergraduate and graduate nursing students: 8 Generation X, 9 Generation Y (Millennials), 20 Boomers, and 3 Overboomers. Factors such as professional norms and personal and organizational supports shaped contradictory nursing activist identities, practices, and impacts. Gendered norms, organizational dynamics, and the political landscape influenced the meanings nurses attributed to critical incidents and influences that prompted activism inside and outside the workplace, shaping the transformative potential of nursing. Despite its limitations, the study has implications for creating professional and organizational supports for consideration of health politics and policy, and spaces for dialogue to support practice and research aligned with social justice goals.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".