Operationalist and inferentialist pragmatism: Implications for nursing knowledge development and practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Philosophical inquiries in nursing are useful for analysing and critiquing existing practices, exploring contextual factors affecting practice, adapting to and sustaining ongoing changes in knowledge development, and facilitating the linkages between theory, research and practice. Nurse scholars used several philosophical schools of thought to guide knowledge development and practice. Pragmatism has been described as essential for bridging the theory-practice gap, for engaging in the inquiry-based practice and for translating knowledge into practice. The existing descriptions of pragmatism rely on rudimentary descriptions of "what works" and "inquiry-based action" aspects. However, the operationalist and inferentialist aspects of pragmatism and their worth for nursing knowledge development and practice are yet to be discussed. This paper explores the operationalist and inferentialist pragmatism and highlights the implications of these aspects for nursing knowledge development and practice. It has been argued that the dual aspect of pragmatism offers an approach to develop practical lines of action, evaluate actions in terms of their usefulness and assimilate already learned actions with the new actions. I suggested that moving beyond the rudimentary understanding of pragmatism and embracing and utilizing the dual aspect of pragmatism can bring more significant benefits for nursing. Embracing the dual aspect of pragmatism can enable nurses in developing philosophical reflexivity, emphasizing the experiential context of nursing, generating actionable and ready to use knowledge, and utilizing nursing theories to their fullest potential.
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 | 0.114 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.088 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| 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".