The contested status of theory/theorizing and humanism/posthumanism in Olga Petrovskaya's <i>Nursing theory, postmodernism, poststructualism, and Foucault</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every academic discipline it seems has its own version of what in professional philosophy has long been called the "analytic/continental split."It is a story, at least in part, about the professionalization of the disciplines in the academy in the 19th and 20th centuries, although its roots go deeper.Once nursing education moved out of the clinical setting and entered the academy in the latter half of the 20th century (at least in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, and Australia), it too developed a version of this story, a set of narratives outlining its own image of thought, an account of its own epistemological grounding and metaphysical orientations.Olga Petrovskaya's new book-Nursing theory, postmodernism, poststructualism, and Foucault-tells something of this story in relation to nursing, about what the author calls the "nursingness" of nursing (2023, p. 12), at least of American nursing and how it played out between 1990 and 2010.
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 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.082 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".