Reconceptualizing Advocacy: A Novel Model for Nursing Theory and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Across nursing literature and guiding documents, nurses are persistently encouraged to engage in advocacy. Many examples exist, however, of the marked lack of consistency and criticality in how the term advocacy has been conceptualized and operationalized within nursing. In this paper, we first examine the dominant constructions of advocacy in the nursing literature, in service of exploring the benefits and unintended consequences of these constructions. Second, we offer a novel conceptualization of advocacy for the nursing profession, grounded in a philosophically rooted and practice-oriented approach which can be adopted across health care environments from the bedside to policy tables. Overall, greater clarity and consistency among nurses as it relates to advocacy is important for ensuring that we, as a profession, contribute to and draw upon a coherent foundational body of knowledge in nurse-led advocacy efforts.
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 | 0.041 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.105 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".