Embodied Ethics of Mediated Touch: A Phenomenological Inquiry into the Nurse's Glove
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the nurse, whether in hospital, community, someone’s home, or almost every other healthcare setting, touching contact with the person in their care is inherent to nursing practices. Charged with the intimate and personal care of patients, the nurse’s touch is often mediated by thin, latex, disposable gloves that affect and shape the nurse’s touch. Yet, it is difficult to imagine a more mundane and unremarkable technology in healthcare than the unassuming disposable glove used by healthcare practitioners. In this phenomenological study, I explored how wearing and not wearing a medical glove might mediate the nurse’s touch, revealing and concealing the embodied practices that the glove makes possible and impossible. This phenomenological inquiry considers the relational and embodied ethics of a basic piece of equipment, the nurse’s glove. Concluding thoughts speak of the need for the nurse to remain aware of the relational experiences for both them and those they look after when wearing gloves.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".