MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012351935 · doi:10.1353/bhm.0.0015

Doctors on Record: Uruguay's Infant Mortality Stagnation and Its Remedies, 1895–1945

2008· article· en· W2012351935 on OpenAlexaff
Anne‐Emanuelle Birn

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the history of medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and modern epidemiology studies
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersU.S. Public Health Service
KeywordsInfant mortalityLatin AmericansPrideMortality rateWelfareDemographyMedicineSocioeconomicsPolitical scienceEconomicsLawSociologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Circa 1900 Uruguayan medical authorities prided themselves on their country's health achievement: the lowest recorded infant mortality rate in Latin America and one of the lowest rates in the world. Over the next three decades, however, these doctors' pride suffered blow after blow as Uruguay's infant mortality stagnated at roughly the same 1900 rate, while other countries experienced sustained mortality declines. Even more frustrating was the apparent inadequacy of the measures that physicians themselves had advocated and implemented. This paper explores Uruguay's infant mortality dynamics during the first half of the twentieth century through the observations, acerbic debates, analyses, policy-making, and administrative perspectives of the country's pediatricians and public health experts. Only after infant health began to be addressed as an integral part of Uruguay's burgeoning welfare state in the 1930s did infant mortality rates start to decline once again.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the history of medicineSame topicHistorical and modern epidemiology studiesFrench-language works237,207