The Turning Point from an Archaic Arab Medical System to an Early Modern European System in Jerusalem according to the Swiss Physician Titus Tobler (1806–77)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Until the end of the Ottoman period the Hippocratic-Galenic doctrine, which had been improved by medieval Muslim medicine, was the pre-dominant medicine in the Holy Land. The penetration of modern medicine into the region was a slow process, advancing step by step over the years until it was established around the end of the 19th century.Dr. Titus Tobler, a Swiss physician of many talents, first visited Jerusalem in 1835, then again in 1845, 1857, and 1865. He reported his experiences and impressions in several books and articles. His publications portray the condition of medicine in the city before the advent of European physicians, their arrival, and the establishment of the first hospitals in the city. Thanks to his endeavours, a professional description of the medical conditions prevailing in Jerusalem in the mid-19th century is available to the public. Tobler's writings include descriptions of the healers, blood-letters, quacks, medicinal substances and their market, and the diseases and illnesses from which the inhabitants suffered. In addition, Tobler produced a detailed report of the different hospitals, pharmacies, European physicians, and their experiences. A digest of Tobler's information, its fresh systematic arrangement, and its comparison with other historical sources, early as well as recent, produces a better picture than ever previously available of the medical conditions of the city in the final years of the ascendancy of Arab medical systems and in the early stages of early modern European medicine in Jerusalem and the Holy Land.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".