Imaginative Archives for a More Radical Nursing Future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, coauthors advance nonlinear threads weaving together questions and contemplations from conference presentations in 2024 and 2025 that were collectively imagined and brought to life by members of an openly political, international writing collective known as Compost Collaborative. The ontological and philosophical underpinnings of our ideas draw from critical theory and philosophy, and the writings of anarchist, feminist, abolitionist, and labor leaders. As a collaborative of nurses, artists and activists, we endeavor to make political ideas more visible and viable in nursing, to advance political nursing action for solidarity in caring, amidst living and dying together on a dying planet. And in tandem, we desire the nursing archives to vibrate with the stories and material objects of nurses who are currently leading, uplifting, and accompanying resistance and justice movements around the planet. We draw upon historical examples from nursing labor movements in Canada, and the archived, dramatized, and reimagined story of Emma Goldman who used prefigurative praxis to nurse comrades and communities as a private and public health nurse, while leading an anarchist movement for justice for impoverished immigrants, workers, women and children. We imagine a political and speculative history of nursing that could have been / may have been, silenced, erased, untold, while asking whose stories tell stories? What are the stories that nursing is writing and living currently that will (or will not) become the archives of the future? We briefly explore the consequences of telling the untold stories. We seek to engage nursing history critically and politically because it is an intentional action, a gerund from the verb- nursING as an action to “creatively disorder the institutional fictions” (Hartman, 2021).
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Science and technology studies Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.240 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".