MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388458776 · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2023.106026

Healers and midwives accused of witchcraft (1563–1736) - What secondary analysis of the Scottish survey of witchcraft can contribute to the teaching of nursing and midwifery history

2023· article· en· W4388458776 on OpenAlex
Nicola Ring, Nessa McHugh, B Reed, Rachel Davidson-Welch, L. Dodd

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNurse Education Today · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsFraser Health
FundersRéseau de cancérologie Rossy
KeywordsFolkloreMedicineProtestantismHarmChildbirthNursingObstetricsSociologyPsychologyPregnancyPolitical scienceLawAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Nearly 4000 people were accused of witchcraft in Scotland between 1563 and 1736. Some of these were healers, midwives, and nurses. OBJECTIVE: To investigate Scotland's folk-healers and midwives accused of witchcraft and review their work from a nursing and midwifery perspective. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the Survey of Scottish Witchcraft. METHODS: Those on the Survey with witchcraft accusations relating to folk-healing or midwifery were identified and their biographies were created from Survey data (2021). Individual biographical data were descriptively analysed. Healing/midwifery practice information was tabulated and thematically analysed. RESULTS: 142 individuals were identified (85 % women), 51 % were found guilty, 90 % were executed. Most (98 %) were folk-healers with 10 accused for midwifery reasons. Mainly their work was accused of causing harm. Three themes emerged: their use of rituals; unorthodox religious practices and treatments. Rituals included actions carried out a certain number of times. Religious practices frequently referenced Catholicism. Many of their treatments for ingestion, application or bathing used items still recognised for their health properties. Approximately, 10 % of the 142, mainly in the 1500s/early 1600s, utilised expensive items and complex treatments which had more in common with 'elite' knowledge rather than simple folklore. CONCLUSIONS: Across all 142 people, many aspects of their work are identifiable within more contemporary nursing and midwifery practice including their use of rituals, treatments, and holism. Mostly the accused were folk-practitioners, but a few (1500s/early 1600s) appear to have been healers working akin to physicians. Following the Protestant reformation (1560) their work, unlike that of physicians, was marginalised, considered unorthodox and harmful because they were women and/or their work reflected Catholicism. European hospital nursing originates in the monastic houses, but little is known about these early religious nurses. This study is novel in suggesting that whoever taught these accused witch/healers may have been connected to the monastic hospitals pre-Reformation.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.251 · 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