MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997996439 · doi:10.1136/bmj.c4509

Contemporary castration: why the modern day eunuch remains invisible

2010· article· en· W1997996439 on OpenAlexaff
Richard J. Wassersug, Tami D. Lieberman

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedical History and Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCastrationData scienceMedicineComputer scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let’s study emasculation. No, we don’t mean the loss of political power. That’s a metaphorical sense. We mean the real thing: the removal or chemical destruction of a man’s testes. And here we refer not to the manufacturing of courtiers in Constantinople, nor to the construction of a caste of opera singers, but to modern day emasculations. Although to many people castration signifies a barbarism that disappeared with the demise of the Ottoman empire, the Chinese dynasties, and the castrati movement in European music, there are surely more men living with removed or functionally arrested testes today than at any other time in history. A minority either identify as women and have sex reassignment surgery or sought castration simply to suppress their libidos.1 2 By far the majority, though, are prostate cancer patients, and it’s this group that we focus on here. Chemically shutting down or surgically removing the main source of testosterone—the testes—can slow the spread of prostate cancer. Castration, of course, has extensive side effects.3 A castrated adult male will lose muscle but gain fat.4 He can expect hot flushes like those that women have at menopause.5 He will lose body hair, …

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.026
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.194 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicMedical History and ResearchFrench-language works237,207