Putting Experimental Dynamics into the Field: The German <b><i>‘Ostfeldzug'</i></b> and the Creation of Emergency Care Chains in Military Neurology and Neurological Surgery, 1941-1945
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The interconnections between the history of neurology and neurological surgery with the development of modern, technological warfare are a vastly under-researched area of medical history. The main objectives of this paper are hence to contribute to the understanding and analysis of a major case example from World War II. MATERIALS: The article's research is based on work at the Bundesarchiv in Koblenz, the Max Planck Gesellschaft in Berlin, and literature regarding the Fuehrungsstab der Luftwaffe, undertaken as part of a larger scale project on the history of the neurosciences and psychiatry in the first half of the 20th century. SUMMARY: The current article focuses particularly on the Ostfeldzug of the Wehrmacht and the creation of emergency care chains in military neurology and neurological surgery. Its results show how major German neurologists, such as Otfrid Foerster, Wilhelm Toennis, Georg Merrem and Klaus Joachim Zuelch have contributed to the development of emergency care chains in military neurology. Key Messages: In conclusion, despite the atrocities and often-inhumane ways through which knowledge was gathered in contemporary military neurology, a better understanding of modern neurology can be gained from a critical assessment of the history of military neurology during World War II.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".