China Confidential: Methodological and Ethical Challenges in Global Nursing Historiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the history of nursing as a field of scholarship expands its global consciousness, it seems timely to join other scholars of international history in rethinking conventional approaches to historiography. The lament by mission scholars at the invisibility of nurses and indigenous workers in historical mission records coincides with calls by China scholars to reconsider traditional reliance on English-language data generation and interpretation for an English-speaking audience. In a similar way, nursing scholars are challenging historians of nursing to find ways to build a body of scholarship and a cadre of scholars that can open up new linguistic and cultural space for vibrant discussion and dialogue. Drawing on Sonya Grypma's research on the role of missionary nurses in the development of modern nursing in China and based on a series of interviews by the authors in China of participants with ties to a former Canadian mission hospital, we explore methodological and ethical challenges in global nursing historiography. By offering insights gleaned from our early attempts to capture voices not included in conventional mission records, we hope to stimulate more dialogue about conceptual and structural issues central to a "new" global nursing historiography.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.062 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".