MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1558973447 · doi:10.3138/cbmh.21.1.121

The Re-appearing Shadow of 1918: Trends in the Historiography of the 1918–19 Influenza Pandemic

2004· article· en· W1558973447 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health History · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Health, Geopolitics, Historical Geography
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicHistoriographyShadow (psychology)HistoryInfluenza pandemicSubject (documents)DramaPhenomenonEvent (particle physics)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)EpistemologyLiteraturePhilosophyMedicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)ArtPsychologyArchaeologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article traces the ways in which the subject of the "Spanish" Influenza pandemic of 1918-19, the worst short-term pandemic of modern times, has been treated (or ignored) by historians over the last 86 years. In doing so , it identifies four distinct surges of interest in the topic, each producing a different conception of this pandemic as history: as epidemiology, as high drama, as social science and ecology, and as scientific saga. It seeks to explain these differing conceptions as part of a wider phenomenon, viz., how an event can be neglected, discovered, made, and re-made as history.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it