Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This discussion paper describes the intricacies of the strong Black woman (SBW) construct and how understanding this construct is significant and relevant within nursing. METHOD: This article is a discussion piece that provides a succinct conceptual and historical overview of the SBW construct. It then describes the impacts of this construct before presenting implications as they relate to nursing practice, education, policy, and research. RESULTS: The SBW construct is exclusively and routinely applied to Black women. Typically, the SBW construct encompasses five components, which center on independence, caring, and strength. These five components include the obligation to (1) always maintain and present an image of strength, (2) suppress emotion, (3) be self-reliant, (4) succeed despite all odds, and (5) always place the needs [especially comfort] of others above those of oneself. Moreover, the SBW construct posits Black women as possessing superhuman capabilities. The nature of this construct is complex, with some Black women using it as a survival mechanism, and others finding empowerment through this image. Nevertheless, recent research has revealed the harms associated with this image including detriment to physical, mental, and spiritual well-being, with the implications extending to Black families and communities. CONCLUSION: Understanding this topic is essential in providing support to all Black women in health care and within the Black community-including patients, nurses, faculty, staff, and students. Recognizing the implications of the SBW construct is essential toward ensuring that our care, practices, and policies are not only supportive but also antiracist.
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 | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".