GARY A. BOYD. Dublin, 1745-1922: Hospitals, Spectacle and Vice. (The Making of Dublin City.) Portland, Oreg.: Four Courts Press. 2006. Pp. 224. $45.00
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book is a tale of two cities, both of them Dublin. Gary A. Boyd uses the lens of architecture to explore the Dublin of the leisured and the Dublin of the disaffected during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In hospitals, built and administered by the rich but populated by the poor, Boyd hits upon rich sites of intercourse between these two worlds, exploring Dublin in the splendor of its Georgian mansions and the squalor of its back alleys. Architecture proves a useful way to link these two worlds. Institutions like hospitals for the very poor and homes for the very rich should be nothing like one another. Yet Dublin's maternity hospital was fashioned after one of the city's great manor homes, Kildare House. The model was easily adapted, providing, for example, effective strategies of segregation, in the case of Kildare House to order family, guests, and lowly servants, and in the hospital to police patients, visitors, and staff. Moreover, the hospital appropriated one of the hallmarks of Georgian opulence—the pleasure garden—to entertain prospective benefactors and generate crucial income for the institution. Such spectacle was so vital to the hospital's survival that it later added a rotunda for Dublin's elite to promenade year round. The hospital's chapel was no less a site for spectacle. The governors, benefactors and other wealthy attendees heard divine service while in a gallery above them, removed but in sight, sat the poor pregnant women dependent on their charity. Chapel service was thus not only a celebration of benevolence, it was a spectacle of fecundity—and Protestant fecundity at that. Boyd reminds the reader in key places of the colonial context that rendered institutions like hospitals sites for the announcement of Anglo-Irish hegemony.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.079 | 0.025 |
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".