MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1607883872

An Element of Hope: Radium and the Response to Cancer in Canada, 1900–1940

2006· article· en· W1607883872 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard S. Stein

Bibliographic record

VenueEurope PMC (PubMed Central) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedical History and Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiumRadium-223MedicineOptimismCancerCancer therapyFamily medicineProstate cancerInternal medicinePsychotherapistPsychologyNuclear physics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 1898 discovery of radium represented one of the monumental advances in medicine, and paved the way for the emergence of novel fields such as nuclear physics and cancer therapy. In his book An Element of Hope: Radium and the Response to Cancer in Canada, 1900–1940, Charles Hayter examines the development of cancer programs in Canada and concomitantly illustrates the hopes, disappointments and struggles that accompanied the use of radium in cancer treatment. His book depicts the compelling historical timeframe that witnessed the entry of radium into the medical establishment, a time characterized by renewed optimism in medicine and research, and describes how the use of radium was introduced on empirical grounds, not through experiment in the laboratory but through experience in the clinic. The hopes placed in this element in the early days are probably best illustrated by the words of a Montreal physician who stated that without radium, the world would be uninhabitable, and by the initial belief that radium was to cancer a magic bullet.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0210.024
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEurope PMC (PubMed Central)Same topicMedical History and InnovationsFrench-language works237,207