MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1604987065 · doi:10.3138/cbmh.27.2.299

Surgeons Reconsidered: Military Medical Men of the American Revolution

2010· article· en· W1604987065 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Tabitha Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health History · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedical History and Innovations
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryMedicinePsychologyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper assesses the reputation of British military medical staff in the 18th century, focusing on the character and professionalism of regimental surgeons and mates who served at the time of the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783). Examining the careers and contributions of men such as Thomas Dickson Reide, Robert Jackson, and Robert Hamilton reveals that--in contrast to charges of ineptitude, laziness and dishonesty among military surgeons--the British army could count on a cadre of military medical men who were devoted both to their patients and to the advancement of their profession.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.538
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Health HistorySame topicMedical History and InnovationsFrench-language works237,207