Are nurses being heard? The power of Freirean dialogue to transform the nursing profession
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nurses need to acquire knowledge about interactive communication, apply critical thinking in prevention and management of illness, and act as patient advocates especially among marginalized and vulnerable populations. This three-pronged approach usually begin during their student years and should include a dialogue framework for use during nursing encounters with patients, family members, and other healthcare providers and for improving the safety and effectiveness of patient care. Therefore, the nursing curriculum should not only include topics related to illness prevention and management, but also prepare nurses to identify and advocate for social justice and health equality by creating a lively and interactive learning environment to allow nurses to build their self-confidence to act and become change agents. Certainly, the COVID-19 pandemic, which exacerbated a nursing shortage and led to limited access to services and poor quality of care for all, underscores the urgency of the Freirean dialogic approach of action-reflection-action. Using this approach, all stakeholders collaborate, discuss, and implement solutions, grow together, and become change agents toward improving nursing care for all.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".