“If I am ill may God save me from being nursed by the ideal nurse that report sets up”: The debate over an international standard in nursing education, 1917-1925.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary struggles in nursing education, including debates on jurisdiction over program approval, competency-based education, and curricula, are not new conversations amongst nurse leaders. Discussions on these very topics, spanning international borders, occurred between 1917-1925, as American nurse leaders looked to extend their influence over nursing education throughout the world. Elisabeth Crowell, an American nurse who was stationed in France with the Rockefeller Foundation’s (RF) Commission for the Prevention of Tuberculosis in France (CPTF) worked towards improving nursing education in areas of France in 1917, however, similar changes to nursing education made by American nurse leaders working in the US at this same time, led to conflict over the ‘proper’ method of improving nursing education worldwide. This paper examines changes to nursing education during the early 20thcentury and explores the conflict and tensions that then existed regarding the setting of one, single international standard in nursing education.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".