Reframing Nursing's Response to Climate Change: A Planetary Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The metaparadigm of nursing, global health, and climate change this essay provides a theoretical analysis of the reasons behind the nursing profession's tardiness in addressing the climate change issue. We propose that the early stages of the professionalization of nursing may have had an impact on this delay. We specifically look at the metaparadigm that is widely accepted, the professional mandate for nurses, and the grand theorists' conceptions of the environment and the nurse-environment interaction. We come to the conclusion that these works may have influenced nurses to understand the environment and their relationship with it primarily in terms of the specific patient, which has prevented nurses from being pushed to understand these notions from a wider angle. It is not unexpected that nurses have been slow to respond to climate change and may not have considered it a professional concern because they lack the philosophical and theoretical underpinnings necessary to comprehend the environment in connection to society. Theoretically, nursing education, research, and practice might be grounded in a planetary health viewpoint. By adopting a planetary health viewpoint, nurses may advance their field and help healthcare systems support a future that is climate resilient.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".