Profits and prophets: Derrida on linguistic bereavement and (Im)possibility in nursing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The work of Jacques Derrida has received relatively little attention within nursing philosophy. Perhaps this is because Derrida is known best for deconstructing philosophy itself, a task he performed by making language unintelligible to make a point. This in itself makes his work daunting for nurses who do applied philosophy. Despite these difficulties, Derrida's focus on holding open a space for ideas, particularly those ideas that are invisible or unpopular, holds potential for enhancing the diversity of ideas within nursing. His work, liberally scattered with religious references, and focused on deconstructing language that served the profits of a few, earned him the characterization of a prophet without religion. This idea was further supported in the way his deconstruction attempted to keep spaces open for the un-representable and its generativity in opening new possibilities in life. A deconstruction for generative purposes is particularly helpful within palliative care where language quickly takes on dogma in the face of mystery and where new possibilities support life amidst the irrevocable nature of death. In this article, I discuss Derrida's deconstructive approach of differance and then apply that approach to language common in palliative care.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".