Migrant Clinics and Hookworm Science: Peripheral Origins of International Health, 1840–1920
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article proposes a global history of hookworm disease based on the main scientific publications on hookworm disease (ankylostomiasis) in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and archival sources from the Rockefeller Foundation's International Health Board. The location of hookworm research is explained by the presence of large concentrations of migrant laborers who suffered from serious hookworm disease in frontier regions during the second industrial revolution. This hookworm disease pandemic was not the result of a linear spread of infection. The extraordinary labor conditions in these regions created ideal ecologies for the reproduction of the parasite, leading to levels of infection that produced ankylostomiasis. The major findings in hookworm science came from research-oriented physicians building new institutions of medical science in peripheral nation-states. In a number of Latin American states their work led to treatment programs conceived in national terms that preceded the interest of Rockefeller philanthropy in the disease. The Rockefeller Foundation incorporated these programs in order to launch its International Health hookworm eradication program in 1914.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".