MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955102463 · doi:10.25071/2291-5796.23

Rethinking the social role of nursing through the work of Donzelot and Foucault  

2019· article· en· W2955102463 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Évy Nazon, Amélie Peron, Thomas Foth

Bibliographic record

VenueWitness The Canadian Journal of Critical Nursing Discourse · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFoucault, Power, and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormalization (sociology)SociologyEveryday lifeMichel foucaultCorporate governanceSocial lifePopulationNursingSocial sciencePolitical scienceMedicinePoliticsManagementLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The history of nursing is often perceived as the history of a profession with charitable and philanthropic objectives of helping others live a healthy life. Many historians have celebrated the major role played by charitable women in nursing. Moving beyond this charitable and dedicated image of nurses, we argue that nursing, through “the social,” became a pivotal component of the governance of the everyday lives of populations. As such, nursing became part of the evolving idea that all areas of life must be managed through a process of normalization that seeks to maximize the life of both the individual and the population. Populations thus became the focus of governmental projects. Jacques Donzelot’s notion of invention of the social and Michel Foucault’s concept of govenmentality make possible a reassessment of the conventional image of nurses, and in particular, that of charitable nurses.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0170.157
Scholarly communication0.0110.014
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0070.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWitness The Canadian Journal of Critical Nursing DiscourseSame topicFoucault, Power, and EthicsFrench-language works237,207