Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the First World War, many Canadian women served on the front lines as nurses, both as working professionals and volunteers. Although the experiences of Canadian women during WWI have been addressed by historians more frequently in recent decades, the experience of professional nurses has been overshadowed by that of Volunteer Aid Detachment nurses (VADs) and women on the home front and of course by studies on soldiers’ experiences. Many historians have found the personal narrative, diary, or journal to be an invaluable source to understanding the First World War. However, there is a gap in the study of the personal narratives, diaries, and journals of Canadian professional nurses specifically. This paper seeks to bridge this gap in WWI history through a specific focus on a selection of the surviving personal papers of Canadian professional nurses. Their personal writings reveal new insights into nursing experience on the front, nursing work, and how Canadian professional nurses sought and found meaning in extraordinary and violent circumstances. They made sense of the war through sociability, relationality, and through recording their time overseas both to cope with the experience itself, and to remember it upon their return home.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
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".