Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines ethical decision making in nursing. The impact of Kohlberg's theory is contrasted with those of Gilligan, Noddings, Diekelmann, and Benner. The influence of these theorists on nurse researchers to develop their own theories based on nurses' ways of knowing is explored. More specifically the thesis critiques the debate between the "ethic of justice" and "ethic of care". An ethic of care is more congruent with the nature of the nurse-patient relationship and the goals of the nursing profession than previously used paradigms. The thesis contends that nurses respect a fundamental commitment to an ethic of justice in their practice but an ethic of care provides the framework that determines their relationship with their patient. This thesis examines the ethics competency in Health: Nursing: Program of Study 180.A0 ., the new curriculum for nursing programs in Quebec, in relationship to the nursing literature on the teaching and learning of ethics. Storytelling, seen as an effective strategy to enhance moral thinking and behaviour, is included as a way to achieve the ethics competency, but its significance could be overlooked if the teacher is not familiar with the literature. A bibliography, which the curriculum does not contain, could remedy this potential problem.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".