Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the strategies adopted by the Polish Second Republic (1918 to 1939) to control the spread of rabies and focuses particularly on the response of the animal welfare movement to these strategies. Animal protectionists were critical of what they saw as an irrational and inflexible approach to rabies control, one which, they said, treated all dogs—who were the main vectors of rabies transmission—as potentially rabid, and which failed to make distinctions based on dog breed or supposed quality of the dog owner. Examining the content of protectionists’ criticisms tells us about the Polish animal welfare movement as a whole, about its prejudices, priorities, and ambitions. It tells us, too, about class tensions in independent Poland. Protectionists’ analysis of the rabies problem reflected their own urban middle-class milieu and was in keeping with their general desire as animal welfare advocates to reform, enlighten, and civilize certain kinds of people. Looking at rabies in interwar Poland encourages us, moreover, to reconsider the lines that separate human from non-human animals and to interrogate the role that humans play in zoonotic disease transmission.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".