Medico-science and school hygiene: a contribution to a history of the senses in schooling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article takes as its inspiration Ian Grosvenor’s conjectural essay presented for the symposium “Historiography of the Future: Looking Back to the Future” held at the International Standing Conference for History of Education (ISCHE) 33 in July 2011 in San Luis Potosi, Mexico. It contributes to a sensory history of schooling by examining how the problematisation of schoolchildren’s eyesight in school hygiene manuals noted by Grosvenor was, to a large extent, made possible by the deeper transformations that occurred in science in the mid-nineteenth century. These included changes in scientific practices and techniques, the invention of new instruments and the emergence of new “scientific selves” that were, in large part, linked to the emergence of objectivity as a scientific ideal. The “objective view” and practices associated with the ideal of objectivity combined with the predominant style of statistical reasoning reinforced the truth claims of senses research by preeminent European scientists. In turn, it made credible and legitimated the findings that resulted when new scientific techniques, methods and instruments associated with the ideal of objectivity were applied to investigations of schoolchildren’s eyesight in the mid-nineteenth century. Medico-scientific investigations that began by first identifying aspects of schooling that caused harm to the sense of sight were later expanded into multiple hygiene(s) and made possible a broader discourse of school hygiene elaborated in the school hygiene manuals that proliferated in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The extent to which precepts of school hygiene underscored the reform of pedagogy and the materialities of schooling suggests that the results of these investigations were profound and far-reaching.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".