Dr. Arthur Spohn: Surgeon, Inventor, and Texas Medical Pioneer by Jane Clements Monday, Frances Brannen Vick, Charles W. Monday Jr.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: Dr. Arthur Spohn: Surgeon, Inventor, and Texas Medical Pioneer by Jane Clements Monday, Frances Brannen Vick, Charles W. Monday Jr. Martha K. Robinson Dr. Arthur Spohn: Surgeon, Inventor, and Texas Medical Pioneer. By Jane Clements Monday and Frances Brannen Vick with Charles W. Monday Jr. Introduction by Kenneth L. Mattox. Gulf Coast Books. (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2018. Pp. xxviii, 341. $35.00, ISBN 978-1-62349-690-6.) The authors of Dr. Arthur Spohn: Surgeon, Inventor, and Texas Medical Pioneer write that they have a “passion for finding stories of important people that have been overlooked in history” (p. ix). Their subject, Dr. Arthur Spohn, was certainly a figure of at least regional significance. As a physician he worked on both sides of the Texas-Mexico border during a career that spanned from the 1860s to his death in 1913. The authors emphasize his marriage into an elite family, his concern for sanitation, his medical inventions, and his successful surgeries. Spohn’s legacy endures today in the CHRISTUS Spohn Health System, a network of hospitals and health centers in southern Texas. The book focuses not just on Spohn but also on his extended family. The authors trace his family history to his Canadian Loyalist ancestors, and they provide biographical detail on his parents, siblings, teachers, and friends. Particular attention is paid to his relationships with the powerful Texas families headed by Richard King and Mifflin Kenedy. At its strongest, the book provides a portrait of the growth and influence of these interlinked powerful families and a glimpse of daily life and high society among the Texas elite. The authors’ biographical research is impressive, and they have an eye for a good story. One chapter, for example, describes Spohn accompanying a frightened patient to France for rabies shots. Others describe some of Spohn’s colorful relatives, including one man who shot a saloon singer and another who was executed for treason in Mexico by the French Imperial Army. If the book’s strength is in storytelling and in providing rich biographical detail, its weakness lies in failing to contextualize the history of medicine. The authors argue that Spohn was at the forefront of medical expertise and well ahead of his time, particularly with regard to cleanliness and sterile operating conditions. They describe other doctors as “the old guard, who continued to practice and defend the ways of the past,” and suggest that “tradition and experience militated against real changes in medical practice” (pp. 2, 144). At the same time, however, they praise Spohn’s medical teachers as experts in their fields and suggest that Spohn’s medical ideas and inventions were appreciated by his fellow physicians. In an appendix, the authors include a selection of medical journal articles written by Spohn, including his descriptions of a new type of splint, a new type of tourniquet, and a successful case of skin grafting. The picture that emerges is unclear. Was Spohn truly a medical pioneer, or was he one of many doctors in his generation who had adopted the hygienic ideas of physicians such as Joseph Lister and Ignaz Semmelweis? Perhaps further [End Page 913] examination of the medical journals that published his articles would have allowed for a more complete picture of medical practice in the American West. Martha K. Robinson Clarion University Copyright © 2019 The Southern Historical Association
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,015 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».