Historically-Informed Nursing: The Untapped Potential of History in Nursing Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For much of the 20th century, nursing history was a core component of nursing education. However, nursing history has all but disappeared from the curriculum. In an effort to prepare nurses for a rapidly-evolving health care system, nursing educators emphasize the value of new, evidence-informed knowledge—specifically in the form of literature published within the previous five years. The focus on the ‘cutting edge’ has effectively, if inadvertently, severed nursing from its roots. As a result, nurses have become disconnected from the richness embedded in our nursing past – a history that spans four centuries in Canada. This article makes a case for historically-informed nursing as an area of untapped potential in nursing education. Framing the topic around the headings History as Innovation, Education, Evidence and Explanation it concludes that historically-informed nursing shapes who we are and informs our identity – and that now is a perfect time for nurse educators to take advantage of what nursing history has to offer.
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 | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.076 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".