MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4308449591 · doi:10.1353/tech.2022.0182

Radiation Evangelists: Technology, Therapy and Uncertainty at the Turn of the Century by Jeffrey Womack

2022· article· en· W4308449591 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueTechnology and Culture · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHistory of Medical Practice
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésContext (archaeology)FaithSociologyPolitical scienceLawHistoryArchaeologyPhilosophyEpistemology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Radiation Evangelists: Technology, Therapy and Uncertainty at the Turn of the Century by Jeffrey Womack Maria Rentetzi (bio) Radiation Evangelists: Technology, Therapy and Uncertainty at the Turn of the Century By Jeffrey Womack. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2020. Pp. 288. Anyone who has worked on the history of radiation cannot avoid wondering at the public's faith in the commercial uses of X-ray technologies. For example, historian Rebecca Herzig estimates that tens of thousands of women across the United States and Canada may have taken X-ray treatments for hair removal, despite the fact that the practice was officially deemed harmful and taken off the market in 1946. In fact, women continued to use it well into the 1960s. But why has this been the case, despite the early warnings and signs of danger? In Radiation Evangelists, Jeffrey Womack poses this urgent question in relation to patients and practitioners of X-rays and radium in the early twentieth century. The answer is deceptively simple: operating in a context of uncertainty, radiation therapists needed faith. But faith in what? Womack's unique and exciting contribution to the history of radiation is the framing of X-rays and radium as new technologies that were transformed into therapeutic tools through a complicated and multifaceted process. Key actors in this transformation were the "radiation evangelists," a diverse group of [End Page 1230] practitioners who embraced both technologies and developed therapeutic procedures beyond any contemporary ethics. When talking about radiation during this early period, we often think of the cruel industrialists who ignored signs of radium's deadly effects on women dial painters, the radiologists who are usually portrayed as "martyrs" of an unexplored new discipline, or the well-known cases of radium poisoning due to excessive drinking of radium tonics. Womack's book changes our perception of this period by turning the spotlight on its complexities and the ways in which radiation therapy was entangled in bitter battles for professional legitimacy between licensed physicians, who quickly incorporated X-rays in their medical practice, and unlicensed practitioners, who opposed strict regulations and questioned the emphasis on licensure, training, and the standardization of uses of X-rays. As Womack gets to the bottom of these disputes, it emerges that these battles concerned the issue of who had the right to practice this new medical specialization. Interestingly enough, Womack reminds us that geopolitical conflicts, even in this early historical period, also influenced the development of both X-ray and radium therapy. For example, Western colonial powers promoted the early use of X-ray emitters through their military physicians in Sudan and Afghanistan. During and right after World War I, radium supplies became available from specific colonial territories. And despite military conflicts and war, knowledge of X-ray technologies continued to flow back and forth between national radiological communities in Europe. The focus on the professionalization of radiation therapy also brings issues of medical ethics to the forefront. Despite the great uncertainty involved in the use of X-ray technologies, Womack argues that understanding the medical practices of the early radiation evangelists presupposes a shift from the notion of ethics as the application of professional rules and codes of conduct to ethics as a matter of good character. X-ray therapy entailed a high risk for both patient and therapist. The "Golden Rule" of medical practice at the time required that a physician prescribe only the treatment he would feel comfortable prescribing to himself and his family. Instead of attributing ill motives to the early radium therapists, Womack's historiographical perspective allows a closer and more detailed look at what the Greeks would have called the "ethos" of these early radiation devotees: the moral nature of their character and guiding beliefs. Radiation Evangelists is not only a well-researched history of X-ray therapy. It also makes an important contribution to science and technology studies by providing a wonderful analysis and case study of Wiebe Bijker's notion of technological frame. To Womack, the cold cathode users of the 1900s shared an understanding of an artifact that they themselves constructed by interacting with it. This approach explains the persistent technological faith and optimism that...

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.

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)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,408
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,429

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,243
Écart entre enseignants0,237 · 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