MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903968887 · doi:10.1177/0894318418807945

Philosophical Theories of Truth and Nursing: Exploring the Tensions

2018· article· en· W2903968887 on OpenAlexaff
Deborah S. Thoun, Megan Kirk, Esther Sangster‐Gormley, James O. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Science Quarterly · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpistemologyNursing theoryPhilosophical methodologyPsychologyNursingMEDLINESociologyPhilosophyMedicinePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the authors explore three philosophical theories of truth and offer a critique of this foundational area of scholarship for nursing. A brief summary of key ideas related to the three substantial philosophical theories of truth-that is, correspondence, pragmatism, and coherence-serves to highlight various convictions and commitments that facilitate or discourage the growth of nursing knowledge in particular ways. The authors conclude that the coherence theory of truth offers a more inclusive view of truth and best captures and supports the diversity that exists within nursing knowledge and the regulative ideal to which nursing aspires.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.017
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.326 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing Science QuarterlySame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207