MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954223039 · doi:10.25071/2291-5796.20

HIV PEP and Nursing Scholarship: A Review of Critical Theory and Social Justice

2019· review· en· W2954223039 on OpenAlex
Patrick O’Byrne

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueWitness The Canadian Journal of Critical Nursing Discourse · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive reframingScholarshipSocial justiceSociologyNursingEconomic JusticeCritical theoryMedicinePsychologySocial psychologyPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research studies are not often considered a form of social justice. However, I put forward an example herein about how I used a grant to provide nursing care to patients who could not otherwise afford the required medication. Specifically, this was the provision of HIV medications in the form of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). In doing this, I attempted to use my position as a nurse researcher to address a social justice issue (i.e., the inaccessibility of PEP for those with lower socioeconomic status) and to concurrently alleviate moral distress among the nurses who provide care to these patients. After presenting this project, I reflect on how this helps us reframe nursing scholarship and critical theory. In short, I argue that we need broader defintions of both, so as to better capture what nurses do and to use our positions for social betterment.

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
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 head0.228
GPT teacher head0.560
Teacher spread0.331 · 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