MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003710812 · doi:10.1017/s0025727300007389

Professionalism and the Boundaries of Control: Pharmacists, Physicians and Dangerous Substances in Canada, 1840–1908

2004· article· en· W2003710812 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical History · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistorical and Scientific Studies
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetitor analysisConsolidation (business)Health careIdentity (music)Control (management)LivelihoodMedicinePower (physics)Function (biology)NursingPublic relationsBusinessPolitical scienceLawManagementHistoryMarketingAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the drive for the consolidation of professional authority, physicians in the nineteenth century sought to exert control over all associated occupations, and weaken the influence of competitors. Many historians have chronicled this process, as doctors and their associations sought to proscribe or eliminate competitors such as homeopaths, eclectics, chiropractors and Thomsonians. Others have explored how physicians sought to subjugate allied occupations such as nursing, radiation technology and physical therapy. Such studies consider power struggles in two contexts. First, doctors could and wanted to function without the interference of others in the health industry. Second, doctors sought to enforce a power structure that placed them at the top with all the other health care occupations beneath them, dependent upon the activities of the physicians to maintain their livelihoods. In both contexts, external factors and internal exigencies shaped the future identity of all occupational groups.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.225 · 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