Book Review. Towards an Ecology of Nursing Knowledge: Nursing and Humanities by Dr. Graham McCaffrey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
McCaffrey, G. (2020). Nursing and humanities. Routledge. (pp. 127, $63.95 CAD, Hardcover) Nursing and Humanities by Dr. Graham McCaffrey explores the role of humanities in nursing knowledge, and McCaffrey makes a compelling case that humanities are an integral, though often invisible, part of nursing practice. He places nursing humanities within the sphere of health humanities and provides a cogent argument, along with examples and insights, to support the claim that the humanities offer not merely another form of knowledge to sit alongside science, but also a way to integrate the diversity of nursing knowledge into a coherent framework or ecology of nursing practice. In this respect, the book serves as an important development in understanding nursing practice and forms a possible bridge between the tensions inherent in contemporary explorations of nursing as an art and science. The book is aimed at nurses, graduate students, nurse educators and researchers, and anyone with an interest in nursing theory. Nursing and Humanities is rich with ideas and propositions, often thought-provoking and challenging in its offering of an evolution of thinking about nursing knowledge 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.044 |
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".