Working Vacations and Adventure: American Women Physician Volunteers to the Labrador Mission of Wilfred Grenfell Before 1914
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many accounts, autobiographical and scholarly, emphasize how volunteers portrayed their work in the mission established for fishers by British physician Wilfred Grenfell in Newfoundland and Labrador: as escapist adventure. Scholars have not studied women physicians or their motivations to volunteer, however. This oversight derives from their small number combined with lack of knowledge about this mission's distinction from the foreign medical missions and domestic frontier missions that drew many women physicians to permanent positions. This study therefore discusses two American physicians, Alfreda B. Withington (1860-1951) and Emma E. Musson (1862-1913), who volunteered for summer service with this mission in 1907 and 1909, respectively. Through their publications, biographical sources, and clinical accounts, it reveals the appeal to them of such temporary, accessible volunteer service as a working vacation that rejuvenated. Importantly, it counters the skewed perspective of contemporary accounts in which the connection of Withington and Musson to an international celebrity, Wilfred Grenfell, overrode fuller considerations of their own lives, careers, and experiences. Finally, this examination suggests possible differences in their volunteerism between women physicians and their male counterparts: along with other women professionals, medical women often incorporated volunteer vacation experience into a continuum of similar endeavors in their careers.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".