MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Invited Guest Editorial: Nursing as Interpretation

2016· article· en· W4400610483 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Graham McCaffrey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Hermeneutics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmpathy and Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretation (philosophy)Statement (logic)Class (philosophy)Context (archaeology)Problem statementPsychologyNursingMedical educationSociologyEpistemologyMedicineLinguisticsPhilosophyHistoryManagement scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this editorial, the context of a graduate class on hermeneutic research is described. Two papers were selected from the class that represent one of the course assignments that requires students to write a written response to the statement: "Nursing is an interpretive practice." The papers that correspond to this editorial are discussed and an interpretation of the master's students' efforts to take up the statement brings us back to the intent of the course.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0150.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.008

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied HermeneuticsSame topicEmpathy and Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207