Nursing Theories Epistemic Space Data Visualization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dashboard visualizes the findings from Beckstead & Beckstead’s (2006) paper “A multidimensional analysis of the epistemic origins of nursing theories, models, and frameworks.” The research positioned 20 influential nurse theorists in a three-dimensional “epistemic space” based on their patterns of citing scholars from different disciplines. The Three Dimensions: Dimension 1 (Psychology): Higher values indicate greater influence from psychology, particularly personality theorists. Dimension 2 (Biology): Higher values show greater influence from biology and general systems theory. Dimension 3 (Philosophy): Higher values reflect greater influence from philosophy, especially existential philosophers. Theorist Groups: ● Existential-Phenomenologists: Theorists like Newman (NW), Paterson & Zderad (PZ), and Parse (PR) who were heavily influenced by existential philosophy. ● Systems Theorists: Theorists like Neuman (NU), Johnson (JN), and King (KG) who were influenced by general systems theory. ● Personality Psychology Influenced: Theorists like Hall (HL) and Orlando (OR) who were influenced by personality psychology. ● Anthropology/Sociology Influenced: Theorists like Leininger (LN) whose work was influenced by anthropology and sociology. Use the tabs to explore different visualizations of this epistemic space.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
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".