Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The history of nursing is almost exclusively a history of women's accomplishments despite the fact that, as early as the fourth and fifth centuries, men have worked as nurses. This perpetuates the notion of men nurses as anomalies. It also provides insight into the gendered nature of nursing and nurses' work within patriarchal culture. AIM: This paper examines the history of men in nursing in Canada, Britain and the United States of America, and offer insights into the ways in which gender relations and the ideological designation of nursing as women's work have excluded, limited and, conversely, advanced the careers of men nurses. METHOD: A search of the literature was carried out using CINAHL, PubMed and Sociological Abstracts databases. Search words included: male nurses, history, nursing, Canada, Britain, United Kingdom and USA. DISCUSSION: Men's participation in nursing reveals that prevailing definitions of masculinity have acted as a powerful barrier to men crossing the gender divide and entering the profession. At extraordinary times such as war and acute nursing shortages, gender boundaries are negotiable. For those men who have crossed over into nursing, a gendered division of labour is evidenced by men nurses' long-standing association with mental health nursing and, more recently, with their disproportionate attainment of masculine-congruent leadership and specialty positions. CONCLUSION: Failure to recognize men's participation in nursing leaves men nurses with little information about their professional background and historical position. It also maintains the invisibility of gender relations that have shaped the experience of men and women nurses alike. Such relations, understood within their broader social context, remain poorly understood and hence uninterrupted, to the detriment of nurses and the profession of nursing.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".