Bertha Harmer’s 1922 textbook – The Principles and Practice of Nursing: clinical nursing from an historical perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This study analyses the origins of a widely used textbook of nursing, commonly utilised in North American Schools of Nursing since 1922, and eventually worldwide. A biography of its first author, Bertha Harmer, is also included. BACKGROUND: Tracing central ideas of nursing throughout the various editions, the book provides a commentary on the cultural-historical context of nursing and reveals how nursing leaders conceptualised the day-to-day knowledge base nurses would need for their practice. DESIGN AND METHODS: Historical analysis. RESULTS: The core nursing concept of 'human needs' was central to Harmer's work and thinking. CONCLUSIONS: Its continuous development by her and her later co-author, Virginia Henderson, reflected broader changes in nursing that were central to the construction of nursing as hospital-based care during the twentieth century. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE AND CONCLUSION: Renewal of nursing practice exists by the virtue of nurses' collective ability to question continuously and critically, the foundations of their practice. Historical analysis of core nursing concepts is one approach to further such critique.
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".