MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1805716348 · doi:10.3138/cbmh.27.1.163

To Improve the Training of Nurses in France: The Manuals Published as Teaching-Aids, 1775–1895

2010· article· en· W1805716348 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Daniel J. Hickey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health History · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistorical and Scientific Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriod (music)Training (meteorology)Medical educationHistoryNursingPsychologyMedicineArtGeographyAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From 1775 to the beginning of the 20th century, many doctors and clergymen published manuals in France to instruct religious women and nurses about their tasks and duties in caring for the sick. This article examines 10 such documents produced during three different periods, each reflecting the priorities of their time. Initially, from 1775-1815, the manuals were to serve in courses proposed to train nurses, courses that were refused by successive French governments. In the second period, 1816-69, they continued to be published as self-help manuals. By the third period, 1870-95, as nursing courses finally began to be set up, the new manuals reflected the new scientific and medical breakthroughs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Health HistorySame topicHistorical and Scientific StudiesFrench-language works237,207