Dialectical Pluralism for Nursing Knowledge Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential of dialectical pluralism (DP) for nursing knowledge development. Nursing scholars have discussed ways of developing nursing knowledge, exploring the fit and relevance of various worldviews for knowledge development and examining the dynamic and perpetual processes of knowledge development. Scholars have argued that knowledge development occurs under a certain worldview to which the researcher adheres. Many nurses employ various worldviews, which can give rise to ontological and epistemological conflicts. DP can help nurses appreciate the diversity of worldviews and recognize the importance of implicit worldviews to generate more practical nursing knowledge. DP as a philosophical approach can enable nurses to communicate between diverse worldviews, become tolerant of conflicting differences, and develop an array of nursing knowledge.
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 | 0.027 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| 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".