MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2551622599 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2016.0002

Communities of Health

2016· article· en· W2551622599 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
James A. Hanley

Notice bibliographique

RevueVictorian review · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésWelshJurisdictionPublic healthSociologyPolitical scienceLawMedicineGeographyNursing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Communities of Health James Hanley (bio) Health and disease, and the methods used to analyze, promote, and control them, created communities of diverse geographic and demographic scope and size in Victorian Britain. These communities ranged from the individuals who lived within a particular local board of health district to those housed within a particular institution to those defined as in need of medical attention according to some conventional standard of health, illness, or ability. Membership in these communities had presumed medical benefits but often had costs as well, sometimes quite out of proportion to the benefits; people at risk for smallpox, women with syphilis, and individuals in lodgings were in one way or another restricted in the enjoyment of their bodily and civil liberties. They were not accorded all the rights associated with community membership; disease and the methods to prevent it marked out different people for different kinds of treatment. These methods, including inspection, notification, isolation, registration, and vaccination, operated throughout Victorian Britain and its empire and were inflected by a variety of general and local factors. Mid-Victorian English and Welsh sanitary reform displayed these contradictory impulses, simultaneously including and excluding both problems and people. Under the 1848 Public Health Act, matters of potential concern to the health of the public were marginalized as a result of its focus on sanitary matters, and even the actions taken under its authority were applied partially and inconsistently. The property-based franchise for the act itself reproduced and reinforced the fact that inclusion within a jurisdiction did not imply membership in the political community. Yet sanitary reform was not always about exclusion and division, as the physical and financial boundaries created under the act showed. In the course of making these boundaries, local public health promoters developed a view of public health that constructed a new kind of community, integrating spatially, socially, and functionally distinct kinds of property into a common political and financial regime. [End Page 14] The 1848 Public Health Act was one of several contemporary laws with boundary implications. As a result of boundary-making exercises associated with, for example, the 1832 Reform Act, the 1834 New Poor Law, and the 1835 Municipal Reform Act, spatial and hence political and financial relationships among the country’s rural, urban, and suburban populations changed in highly significant ways. Physical and financial boundaries created under the Public Health Act likewise redefined not only membership but also responsibility and, more importantly, liability. The establishment of the physical boundaries of the local health district could, depending on the circumstances, include property hitherto exempt from paying for urban improvement such as suburban houses, local industry, and building and agricultural land. Once a physical boundary was set, the local board of health (lbh) still had to make difficult decisions about distributing the costs of sanitary improvement within that boundary. The Public Health Act left decisions about rating to lbh discretion, and local boards’ rating decisions consistently pushed the financial boundaries of health, rating property hitherto exempt from these charges. This was potentially legally controversial, and local boards could and did end up in front of the courts. The most important legal case of lbh financial boundary-making revolved around the ancient rating principle in Tudor sewer law that a property owner or occupier was not required to pay for any works from which their property did not derive a (direct) benefit. Practically speaking, the benefit principle was realized by having sewer districts subdivided into smaller areas so as to make assessments of benefit more meaningful; in the usual language of the time, separate subdistricts were to be identified, and, as near as possible, each subdistrict was to pay its own expenses. In the 1848 Public Health Act, by contrast, there was no explicit direction requiring the local boards of health to subdivide their districts. The 1848 Public Health Act thus permitted local boards to construct drainage and waterworks for a district encompassing several hitherto distinct neighbourhoods and to rate all of the property of the district equally for the work (some property was statutorily rated at a discount) instead of throwing the cost on the most densely populated and sometimes poorest part of a...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,743
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,130
Tête enseignante GPT0,307
Écart entre enseignants0,178 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueVictorian reviewMême sujetHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal ChangesTravaux en français237 207