Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humanism has appeared intermittently in the nursing literature as a concept that can be used in understanding nursing. I return to the concept in response to noticing the term appearing in the context of health humanities, where it is loosely associated both with humanities and being humane. I review the usage and critiques of humanism in both nursing and medical literature and then re-evaluate what the idea of humanism might hold for nursing, trying to avoid the traps of an over-determination of the human subject, or dichotomizing nursing as art or science, technology or caring. I draw on writings on humanism primarily from Emmanuel Levinas and Edward Said to emphasize strands in humanism of obligation towards others and of critical discernment within history and culture directed towards democratic practices. I discuss in passing the strong association in the UK particularly between humanism and scientism as a note of caution about the plurality of the term humanism. I conclude that humanism is a tradition that does offer productive ways of thinking about nursing with the proviso that it ought to be treated carefully as a problematic tradition and not as a new essence for nursing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".