MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295047890 · doi:10.1097/ans.0000000000000453

Considering the “Bitter Rivalry” Within the Context of European and Colonial History of Women Healers

2022· article· en· W4295047890 on OpenAlexaff
Adeline Falk‐Rafael

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Nursing Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Gender and Feminism Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRivalryColonialismContext (archaeology)PsychologyTraditional medicinePsychiatryMedicineHistoryPolitical scienceLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polarized opinion among nurses regarding two 19th century nurses is damaging in its divisiveness. The nursing works of Nightingale and Seacole in the 19th century are presented within the context of European and Colonial history involving the rise to power of the medical profession, the decline of women healers, and the beginning of professional nursing in an effort to understand the factors contributing to the polarization. A Supplemental Digital Content video abstract is available at http://links.lww.com/ANS/A55 .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.545
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Nursing ScienceSame topicHistorical Gender and Feminism StudiesFrench-language works237,207