MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007892047 · doi:10.1055/s-2001-17869

European roots of American gastroenterology - The Ismar Boas Lecture of the 56th Annual Meeting of the German Society of Gastroenterology, Münster, 13 September 2001 -

2001· article· en· W2007892047 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. H. Baron

Bibliographic record

VenueZeitschrift für Gastroenterologie · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedical History and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermanMedicineGastroenterologyInternal medicineGeneral surgeryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

American medicine in general, and gastroenterology in particular, have their roots in Europe, with its more than 2 thousand years of Greek-based rational science. The early colonists of America, whether Spanish, Portuguese, French, Dutch or English brought doctors from their own countries. This history is limited to USA and Canada, is illustrative and not a comprehensive chronicle. In the 17th century some colonial students went to the medical schools at Leyden and Utrecht in the Netherlands. Scientific gastroenterology dates from the 18th century. There was two-way communication between America and Europe. Europeans sent their books and specialists to America. Americans traveled to Europe, both as medical students and for postgraduate studies and research. Thirdly, in the 20th century, many European gastroenterologists fled to America as refugees from persecution. For simplicity historians have classified the 3 most medically influential European countries as Britain in the 18th century, France in the first half of the 19th century, followed by Austria and Germany up to 1933 [ 1 3 ].

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)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.007

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZeitschrift für GastroenterologieSame topicMedical History and ResearchFrench-language works237,207