Before operating room nursing journals: operating room nursing in the pages of the Canadian Nurse 1940-1960.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Nurses Association (CNA) values learning from nursing history to provide a contextual perspective in understanding how past events have shaped current nursing practice. Until the publication of operating room nursing journals, Canada's national nursing journal, The Canadian Nurse, served as an educational and professional resource for those nurses working in the operating room and for nurses whose work was related to, or connected with, the operating room. A historical review of early issues of The Canadian Nurse (first published in 1905) reveals a substantial amount of content related to operating room nursing in the twenty year period, beginning in the 1940s, that predated the existence of OR specialty journals. The content was, for the time, both detailed and informative. It was through this journal that operating room nurses, indeed all Canadian nurses, learned about new advances, employment opportunities, educational programs, professional associations, and the achievements of those in the profession. Operating Room Nursing, as an isolated and quickly emerging specialty, was introduced to other nurses via items in The Canadian Nurse journal.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.009 |
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".