Editor's introduction to the special issue on the 25th international nursing philosophy conference associated with the International Philosophy of Nursing Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We wish to share some new developments concerning the introduction of this annual special issue of the journal, stemming from the international nursing philosophy conference associated with the International Philosophy of Nursing Society (IPONS). This year's special issue is guest edited by Dr. Jess Dillard-Wright and Dr. Agness Tembo, who served on the 2022 conference planning committee and are elected members of the IPONS executive board. Their invited editorial does important work describing the conference discussions and the papers published here. To provide some context, 2022 marked the 25th event of the conference, which was hosted by the Sue & Bill Gross School of Nursing's Center for Nursing Philosophy at the University of California Irvine, USA in August 2022. The history of the conference began with a committed group of philosophers of nursing at Swansea UK in 1997 and has grown to encompass inquiry across the nursing-philosophy terrain. The 2022 conference theme, “What has philosophy ever done for nursing anyway?” was developed back in 2019 by Derek Sellman, then editor-in-chief of Nursing Philosophy and director of the Unit for Philosophical Nursing Research at the University of Alberta, Canada. It was a humorous take on a Monty Python quote (What have the Romans ever done for us?). Yet it was a call for serious discussion as well. Derek Sellman is now retired and while the conference sadly happened without his presence, his spirit happily remains ever-present in the conference theme. The International Philosophy of Nursing Society also owes much of its conception, establishment and overarching goals to Professor Steve Edwards, who sadly passed in 2020. The Steve Edwards Memorial Lecture was established by the IPONS executive board in April 2021, and the 2022 conference marked the inaugural lecture, given by Dr. Janet Holt and published in this issue. A further addition to the annual conference issue is that accepted conference abstracts are being published for the first time. We welcome this expansion of conference content, as it allows those who were unable to attend the conference to learn about all the topics that were discussed. Also, all conference panels, keynotes, and virtual conversations, were recorded and can be accessed here (the link is: https://padlet.com/jdillardwright/international-philosophy-of-nursing-conference-vsxlg35a28hqkq6e). We hope you enjoy reading this special issue and look forward to submitting the call for manuscripts stemming from the September 2023 conference, which is being hosted by the University of Sydney, Australia, in association with IPONS. We hope to see you there!
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.075 | 0.037 |
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".