Embracing the Focus of the Discipline of Nursing: Critical Caring Pedagogy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To present a theoretical model that grounds teaching and learning in nursing in the focus, values, and ideals of nursing as a discipline. ORGANIZING CONSTRUCTS: The critical caring pedagogy model was formed by integrating Falk-Rafael's theory of critical caring in public health nursing, Noddings' philosophy of caring education, and Chinn's theory of peace and power. METHODS: The model of critical caring pedagogy was developed by logical analysis of the three organizing constructs and the conceptual relationships between and among these constructs. The analysis was informed by the authors' experiences implementing the theoretical constructs in teaching and learning. CONCLUSIONS: When nurse educators ground teaching and learning practice in nursing's own theoretical and philosophic foundation, they teach nursing in powerful ways that show nursing values and ideals through action, revealing deeper meanings of the words that form texts, lectures, and objectives set forth in a curriculum outline. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Nursing students who experience education that is grounded in nursing's own disciplinary focus acquire an appreciation of nursing's disciplinary knowledge grounded in experience, paving the way for grounding their eventual practice in nursing theoretical perspectives.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".