MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1822719481 · doi:10.3138/cbmh.25.1.43

A Rockefeller Foundation Health Primer for US-Occupied Nicaragua, 1914–1928

2008· article· en· W1822719481 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ligia María Peña Torres, Steven Palmer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health History · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Medicine and Tropical Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthAgency (philosophy)Political scienceFoundation (evidence)Public administrationInternational healthInstitutionProtectorateEconomic growthHealth policyLawSociologyPoliticsSocial scienceMedicineHealth careNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article presents views from above and below of the Rockefeller Foundation's International Health Commission's (IHC's) hookworm control program in Nicaragua from 1914 to 1928. It looks at the meaning, impact, and unique configuration of the Nicaraguan mission, while taking into account the larger global institutional project of this important international health actor. Although the IHC program in Nicaragua complemented some of the social policy goals of the US intervention in Nicaragua, which was a de facto protectorate during this period, the institution cannot be considered a direct expression or agent of US foreign policy. Ultimately the shape and limits of the IHC mission to Nicaragua were determined by the institutional project of the international public health agency itself, and by local considerations ranging from the characteristics of the staff to the response of rural communities to the anti-hookworm campaigns.

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)0.002
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 score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.003

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.156 · 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

Citations21
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Health HistorySame topicHistory of Medicine and Tropical HealthFrench-language works237,207