Exploring a hermeneutic perspective of nursing through revisiting nursing health history
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, the nursing health history is revisited with a hermeneutic lens to uncover means by which this tool can better serve nursing practice. It is argued that further distanciation from the developmental and medical model is necessary to accurately uncover health and history in the nurse-client encounter. Based on the works of prominent hermeneutic philosophers, such as Heidegger, Gadamer, Merleau-Ponty, Ricoeur, and Taylor, four orientations to health history and nursing are explored: orientation to caring, orientation to narrative, orientation to time, and orientation to the body. The nursing health history is used as a vehicle for illuminating the usefulness of a hermeneutic perspective in everyday nursing practice. This article reveals views of health, history, and health history that are already known to nurses and the nursing milieu but are concealed by more dominant outlooks. The hermeneutical perspective presented in this article can help to reveal the important dimensions of everyday nursing practice and foster a richer attunement with the complex health experiences of individuals.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".