The Indispensability of Critique: Reflections on Bearing Witness to Mental Health Discourse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.069 | 0.163 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".