MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904716518 · doi:10.1097/ans.0000000000000244

Implications for Paradigm Shift in Nursing

2018· article· en· W2904716518 on OpenAlexaff
Ahtisham Younas, Karen Parsons

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Nursing Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursing scienceRelevance (law)Meaning (existential)Normal scienceParadigm shiftNursing researchNursing theoryNursingEpistemologyPsychologyNursing literatureMEDLINEMedicinePhilosophyAlternative medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By seeking answers to ontological and epistemological questions, nursing scholars explored the foundations of nursing and articulated the meaning of nursing science from various philosophical perspectives. This ongoing search for advancement and development of nursing aligns with the concept of "normal science" by Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn's science influenced nursing knowledge, resulting in the development of nursing metaparadigm and paradigms. Despite this influence, Kuhn's science's relevance for nursing science received a little scrutinization. This article presents a critical analysis of Kuhn's science and its influence on and relevance for nursing discipline and suggests implications for nursing knowledge development.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
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 score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.596
Teacher spread0.495 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Nursing ScienceSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207