Visibility and Invisibility of Nurses in Hospital Settings: An Analysis Based on the Sociologies of Ignorance and of Absences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Imbued with historical, cultural, and social aspects, nurses' visibility and invisibility have often been studied in terms of their work. Based on the sociology of ignorance and the sociology of absences, our aim in this article is to shed light on how organizational processes can actively produce nurses' visibility or invisibility on care units. To this end, we conducted an exploratory qualitative study with 15 nurses in three tertiary care hospitals that are part of a large health and social services center in Quebec, Canada. The data collected through semi-structured interviews, nonparticipatory observations, and analyses of patient records were subjected to thematic analysis. Three themes were identified from the analysis: the context of nurses' visibility, the impact of organizational structure on nurses' visibility and invisibility, and visibility associated with the persistence of the traditional image of the nurse. Hence, these themes help illustrate how organizational processes favor visibility and invisibility, and the instrumentalization of nurses. This is important to highlight these processes and denounce them so that the legitimacy of nurses' epistemic and political positions in healthcare settings is better considered.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".