Un développement de savoir disciplinaire infirmier influencé par deux visions de la science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The historical development of nursing knowledge reflects the political, social, and professional contexts that have shaped it, but also different visions of science and scientific knowledge. This article focuses on these two elements, science and scientific nursing knowledge, in order to examine nursing knowledge in the context in which it was proposed. Examining the influences that have shaped its development allows us to situate it among what were recognized as the modalities of knowledge development and the structures of knowledge formulation. By looking back we thus seek to appreciate the true value of nursing knowledge by providing keys to understanding its particular nature in relation to contemporary views of knowledge formulation, and to highlight the merits of those who helped lay the foundations for disciplinary knowledge. This historical overview of the development of nursing knowledge raises awareness of the status and growth of nursing knowledge and of the theorists who made it possible. It also seeks to restore and inspire a respect for its pioneers that is often lacking in nursing.
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 | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| 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".