MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804580299 · doi:10.7748/ns.18.14.23.s35

The Women and War exhibition reminds us that nurses can be unkind to each other

2003· article· en· W2804580299 on OpenAlexaff
Linda Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Standard · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Conflict Studies
Canadian institutionsRoyal Canadian Navy
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExhibitionCompassionFirst world warVisual artsWorld War IIArtArt historyPolitical scienceLawHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nurses feature prominently in the current Women and War exhibition at London’s Imperial War Museum. Due recognition is given to Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole and their work in the Crimea, serving as a reminder that the compassion they showed remains a necessary feature of their modern-day counterparts. But for the most part, the exhibition focuses on the two world wars and there are many references to the experiences of nurses who have no particular claim to fame beyond having survived the brutality of war.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0000.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing StandardSame topicHealth and Conflict StudiesFrench-language works237,207