MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010810378 · doi:10.1136/jmh.2008.000266

Evidence-based medicine? Patient case studies in English surgical treatises, 1660–1700: Table 1

2008· article· en· W2010810378 on OpenAlex
S Sandassie

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Humanities · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyHistoryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The implications of the presence of case information included in English surgical treatises published from 1660 to 1700 are discussed. While such casework has been frequently examined and cited, the phenomenon of including case information in treatises has yet to be studied in any depth. The context, presentation and origins of the case information are discussed, and the reasons behind the inclusion of casework are explored in terms of "blame-narratives", teaching models and evidence-based medicine. It was found that, while the reasons behind the inclusion of case information varied, English surgeons practised evidence-based medicine. This finding is significant, as it proposes that evidence-based medicine was practised a century earlier than-and across the Channel from-its supposed first emergence in modern medical practice.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.000

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 head0.235
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.074 · 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