MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772336564 · doi:10.1515/ijnes-2017-0071

Crazy Making: The Institutional Relations of Undergraduate Nursing in the Reproduction of Biomedical Psychiatry

2017· review· en· W2772336564 on OpenAlexaffabout
Simon Adam

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNurse educationCurriculumNursingMental healthTeam nursingNursing researchPsychologyMedical educationMedicinePedagogyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Undergraduate mental health nursing education has been extensively discussed among nursing scholars, educators, and curriculum experts. While various perspectives have weighed in on mental health nursing education in Canada, little attention has been paid to understanding the relationship between biomedical psychiatry and undergraduate nursing education. Using institutional ethnography, this article examines the social and textual relations which characterize this relationship. Beginning in the everyday teaching and learning work of faculty members and nursing students in a collaborative baccalaureate nursing program, the social organization of mental health nursing education is explicated and the textual processes are outlined. Findings suggest the presence of an institutional and discursive dominance of mental health nursing education by biomedical psychiatry. Implications for nursing education and recommendations to better balance mental health nursing education are outlined.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.589
GPT teacher head0.626
Teacher spread0.038 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Nursing Education ScholarshipSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207