Public Health Nursing in British Columbia from 1960 to 2005 : Transformations in Policy and Governance Structure : A Historical Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A great portion of the history of public health nursing in British Columbia is intricately linked to major public policy developments and changes in governance structure through the years. This link is not often well understood in discussions about the role of Public Health Nurses and their shifting scope of work. Understanding this link will help us identify the ways in which Public Health Nurses have come to preserve health, control disease, and treat illnesses in the province. The focus of this Scholarly Practice Advancement Research project is to examine the historical development of public health nursing in British Columbia during the period from 1960 to 2005 through the lens of public policy and governance structure. Using historical research, including oral nursing history, the project examined what key policy documents, reports, and major developments have influenced nursing practice in public health from 1960 to 2005 in British Columbia, with a particular focus on the City of Vancouver as a case example. This project further complements a series of oral history interviews with Public Health Nurses recently completed within the UBC Consortium for Nursing History Inquiry and deposited into the UBC Archives collection, and it provides historical context to the stories of the nurses who have been interviewed. By capturing the history of policy development in public health nursing, this project shows how Public Health Nurses’ work has shifted in response to the sociopolitical environment and the restructuring of the health care system in British Columbia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".