A social construction of the development of ICU nursing in Canada, 1960 to 2002.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The early 1960s marked the opening of intensive care units (ICUs) in several hospitals across Canada. From the beginning, registered nurses constituted the largest body of health care providers in the ICU environment and they were the central provider of hands-on care to patients and families. From a historical perspective, however, a limited body of knowledge exists specific to the development of ICU nursing in Canada. PURPOSE: In this study we explored the development of ICU nursing in Canada from 1960 to 2002 using a social history approach that emphasized the creation of an historical account from the perspective of the everyday experiences of ICU nurses. METHOD: A social history approach was used. Primary sources included oral history interviews, documents and records, published professional literature between 1960 and 2002, as well as photographs. The study received ethics approval from the research ethics boards at the University of Ottawa (for conducting oral history interviews), as well as Queen's University (for access to archives at the Kingston General Hospital). RESULTS: The findings of this study provide a perspective on how ICU nurses learned and created new knowledge, as well as the establishment of an ICU nursing identity at both the individual and national levels.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".