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 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)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0110.123
Scholarly communication0.0210.039
Open science0.0050.017
Research integrity0.0100.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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