Bernard Brouwer's Lecture Tours in the United States (1926 and 1933)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bernard Brouwer (1881-1949), the first ordinary professor of neurology in the Netherlands and a man of prominent stature among continental neurologists, was invited to read lectures at several university clinics in the United States in 1926 and 1933. In this article, we describe Brouwer's impressions from these tours to obtain a view of US neurology in the 1920s and 1930s compared with the state of Dutch neurology. We studied Brouwer's reports of the lecture tours and pertinent materials obtained from several institutes in the United States where he lectured. Brouwer read the Herter Lectures at The Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore, Md) in April 1926 and subsequently visited several American cities. His second tour was by invitation from the Association for Research in Nervous and Mental Disease in New York, NY (1933), and he accepted invitations to visit New Haven, Conn; Boston, Mass; and Montreal, Quebec. According to Brouwer, neuroanatomy in the United States was studied on a wider experimental basis than in Europe. American colleagues, frequently working in teams, tended to have their theoretical-scientific work led by direct practical results. The scientific level among various universities ranged more widely than in the Netherlands, where the levels were homogeneous. In the United States, Brouwer encountered a general willingness to engage in scientific investigations, usually manifesting already in young students and residents, their inquisitive minds being stimulated early. His US colleagues had more assistants in the clinics and laboratories than those in the Netherlands. American neurologists were particularly interested in the anatomic and physiologic features of the meninges and cerebrospinal fluid circulation. American neurosurgeons were vastly advanced in neurosurgery.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
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".