MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955296136 · doi:10.25071/2291-5796.18

The Indispensability of Critique: Reflections on Bearing Witness to Mental Health Discourse

2019· article· en· W2955296136 on OpenAlex
Simon Adam, Cheryl van Daalen‐Smith, Linda Juergensen

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
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWitnessVariety (cybernetics)Mental healthMental health nursingSociologyEpistemologyHegemonyNursingPsychologyMedicinePolitical scienceLawPsychotherapistPoliticsPhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reflecting on two mental health examples from our practice, we demonstrate how in the instances that critique is absent, the results can be catastrophic. Drawing on Foucauldian theory, we propose the idea of critique, known as the vigilant tempering of governance (or the ‘conduct of conduct’). We advance that critique is an indispensable health resource for the practicing mental health nurse and for nursing more broadly, without which nursing risks participating in the reproduction of hegemonic discourses and practices. Critique, in this paper, is theorized as a tool to be included in the nurse’s repertoire, that which can unlock a variety of ontological and epistemological possibilities. We discuss some reasons why nursing critique is constrained and offer questions for further reflection and critical consideration.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.368 · 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