Models for designing health-oriented nursing practice: Contributions to nursing practice and the nursing discipline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health generally represents what nurses should strive for in their practice. However, due to their general nature, the definitions of health are problematic for designing a health-oriented nursing practice. Rather than attempting to design it through a conceptual definition of what health is, some authors from the human sciences suggest using models that allow for a concrete commitment to health. Although this avenue is little explored in nursing, it is suggested that these practice-oriented health models would make it possible to design actionable mechanisms that generate health through practices, like nursing. The objective of this article is, through existing practice-oriented health models, to propose actionable mechanisms of health-oriented nursing practice. By invoking two models, from the writings of the philosopher Nordenfelt, as well as the sociologist Venkatapuram, two illustrations are proposed, both of which allow us to propose different actionable mechanisms. Anchored in the values that support a health-oriented practice, as well as in a descriptive component, this reflection highlights the potential of such models to concretely pursue a health-oriented nursing practice. These proposals appear to be promising for the participation of nursing science in the transdisciplinary understanding of health.
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 | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".