Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evelyn Underhill, in her classic work Practical Mysticism, makes a significant statement in reference to Florence Nightingale, saying "Perhaps it is worthwhile to remind ourselves that the two women who have left the deepest mark upon the military history of France and England -Joan of Arc and Florence Nightingale -both acted under mystical compulsion." 1 To many, this statement may appear odd, since Nightingale's name is most often recognized in the area of health sciences as the founder of the nursing profession. Underhill's statement becomes even more striking when comparing the mystical experiences of Joan of Arc with the scientific methodology used by Florence Nightingale as a social reformer. Questions arise such as "How did Nightingale's spiritual experience of God lead her into nursing?" and "In what way did her ideal of God's perfection originate as an important tenet of her religious philosophy, especially in relation to the scientific world of modern Britain?" One cannot begin to entertain Nightingale as a mystic without first examining the events that led her into nursing and a career as a social reformer. Nightingale's faith in God inspired her throughout life; however, it was her hard work and philosophy of science that provided her with the means of acquiring knowledge in order to suggest improvements regarding social and public health reforms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".