Rethinking Children’s Nursing: Critical learnings from Childhood Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within this commentary, I contest dominant views and practices regarding im/maturity within Children’s Nursing that are rooted in refuted age-based conceptions of child development. I highlight how these operate as forms of epistemological oppression that perpetuate the exclusion of young people’s voices and experiences in research, policymaking and practice development that affects them. These dominant approaches breach their participation rights and can generate significant distress and trauma. To counter these oppressive views and practices, I discuss an inclusive participatory framework that is centered on the recognition of young people as human agents, acknowledging their voices as forms of agential expression and action. I argue that all research, policymaking and practice development that affects young people should be informed by their aspirations and concerns expressed through respectful – not tokenistic - youth engagement initiatives. I argue for an urgently-needed restructuring of Children’s Nursing theory and practice.
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 | 0.055 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.116 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".