MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997371812 · doi:10.1353/bhm.0.0032

Doing Medicine Together: Germany & Russia Between the Wars (review)

2008· article· en· W1997371812 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ирина Сироткина

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the history of medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermanScrutinyPoliticsTreatyEconomic historyPolitical scienceClassicsLawHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Doing Medicine Together: Germany & Russia Between the Wars Irina Sirotkina Susan Gross Solomon , ed. Doing Medicine Together: Germany & Russia Between the Wars. German and European Studies. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006. xviii + 533 pp. Ill. $65.00, £42.00 (ISBN-10: 0-8020-9171-7, ISBN-13: 978-0-8020-9171-0). This book is the fruit of several annual symposia on Soviet–German medical relations, which were held in Berlin from 1992 to 1997 and culminated in a meeting on the same topic in Toronto in 2000. Contributors are historians of European science, medicine, and culture and archival researchers; this scholarly network stretches from Germany and Russia to Canada and the United States. To speak of scientific and medical collaboration between Germany and Russia, two former and future political enemies, is a counterintuitive matter even for historians. Was it a political show, a genuine interest, or even an attempt at true cooperation? The period under scrutiny began with the signing of the Rapallo Treaty in 1921 and ended in the first years of Stalin's Cultural Revolution. The acme was reached in 1925 with the founding of the Deutsch-Russische Medizinische Zeitschrift. The founding of this journal, in which high-ranking officials on both sides took part, most resembles what one could call a successful joint venture. In other stories, cooperation looks to have been more problematic. Sometimes these accounts are intriguing, like the one about the bacteriologist Heinz Zeiss, who worked for the Russian medical service and later unsuccessfully fought an accusation of spying for Germany. Sometimes they are tragic, like the story of Jewish physician émigrés from Germany, who found a second home in the Soviet Union but subsequently fell victims of Stalinist repression. These stories are researched and told in great detail. The figure of the medical entrepreneur and adventurer, Zeiss, is studied especially thoroughly (in four papers by Elizabeth Hachten, Wolfgang Eckart, Susan Gross Solomon, and Sabine Schleiermacher). Although the authors have different anchorages in the topic and illuminate different aspects of Zeiss's prolific activity, the reader nevertheless feels a certain déjà-vu. There is more to the book than one expects from the title. Building on the background of medical contacts, it includes articles on much broader topics. Marina Sorokina writes on the celebration of the two-hundredth anniversary of the Russian Academy of Sciences, one of the first Soviet ceremonies to which foreign scientists were invited. Michael David-Fox explores the role of the All-Union Society [End Page 482] for Cultural Ties Abroad (the abbreviated Russian name is VOKS) in bringing intellectuals of the two countries together. Paul Weindling contributes an article on the political underpinning of German interests in Russia and its medicine, written in conjunction with his excellent book-length study, Epidemics and Genocide in Eastern Europe, 1890–1945 (Oxford, 2000). Jochen Richter traces the history of twin institutions, both headed by Oscar Vogt: the Berlin Brain Research Institute and its Moscow counterpart, founded for the purpose of studying Lenin's brain as well as brains of other dignitaries. Nikolai Krementsov tells the story of the Seventh International Genetics Congress, which was scheduled for 1937 in Moscow but only materialized in Edinburgh two years later. The cancellation of the Moscow meeting marked the decisive turn against genetics in Soviet Union politics, and it also touched some German researchers, including the German émigré biologist working in Moscow, Julius Schaxel. One reason Germany and Russia looked to each other in this period is that both were marginal in world politics. So were those doctors and researchers who built bridges between the two countries and their medicine. Germany and Russia were also marginal to the community of which they intended to be part. Heinz Zeiss came to Russia as a relatively young man with no career in Germany; Oscar Vogt never had an academic position in Germany apart from the one he created for himself; Louis Jacobson-Lask, the neuroanatomist (described in the article by Ulrike Eisenberg), was a marginal figure in both his immediate academic community and among Soviet medical researchers. The final article by Carola Tischler is equally about outsiders, some of whom were persecuted...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score1.000
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the history of medicineSame topicHistory of Science and MedicineFrench-language works237,207