Historical Thinking and the Shaping of Nursing Identity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nursing history was a core component of nurse training programs as early as 1907, when American Adelaide Nutting published her three-volume history. However, it had all but disappeared by the end of the 20th century, supplanted by other subjects. The University of Ottawa Nursing History Research Unit developed two online nursing history courses, in English and French, respectively, which proved popular and prompted substantial interest in the reintroduction of nursing history to our curriculum. This article presents findings of a study that examined the concept of "historical thinking"-what it is, how it develops, and what it contributes to practice-based professions-based on student postings in these courses. Analysis suggests that primary sources and critical appraisal skills are keys to the formation of historical thinking, and that these courses fostered a strong sense of professional identity among participants who often lamented lack of previous exposure to nursing history. Online nursing history courses can capitalize on e-learning technologies, and fit crowded curricula and student learning styles, while extending the reach of historians beyond traditional university walls.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it