MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407121324 · doi:10.1111/nup.70017

Nursing and Pluralism: The Work of Michel Serres

2025· article· en· W4407121324 on OpenAlexaff
Graham McCaffrey

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Philosophy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMental Health and Psychiatry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPluralism (philosophy)SociologyNursingEpistemologyNursing scienceMetaphysicsMedicinePsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nursing theory should reflect the pluralism inherent in nursing practice. Nurses routinely enact different kinds of knowledge in combination to achieve good nursing care. Nursing theoretical and philosophical literature includes many attempts to engage with epistemological pluralism. In this paper, concepts from the work of Michel Serres are introduced as a contribution to the resources available to think pluralistically about nursing. Serres' work is valuable because he is a pluralist thinker, who uses different conceptual tools to explore the complexity of human life, including topology, isomorphism, and the excluded third. Serres' terms are discussed with examples of application to nursing. An extendeddd example of addictions nursing is used to pull together different concepts applied to a complex and multilayered area of 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing PhilosophySame topicMental Health and PsychiatryFrench-language works237,207