The “Blood Trinity”: Robertson, Archibald and MacLean- The Canadian Contribution to Blood Transfusion in World War I
Bibliographic record
Abstract
FOUR HUMOURSI t is often said that "history is written by the victors," and although Canada and America were allies during the First World War in "medical history", the role of the American Medical Corps in introducing blood transfusion to wartime surgery appears to have completely effaced that of the Canadians.The authoritative account of the use of blood transfusion in WWI was written by British Historian Geoffrey Keynes, who by ignorance, for simplicity, or by national prejudice left out the role of the three Canadian surgeons who actually pioneered the use of blood transfusion in war surgery.Fortunately for the Canadian legacy, the American medical historian Kim Pelis has recently made the case for a correction to the record 1 .The argument for the Canadian case is made in Pelis's article, "Taking Credit: The Canadian Army Medical Corps and the British Conversion to Blood Transfusion in WWI," where she details the contribution of the Canadians and the circumstances that led to their story being forgotten.The current essay tells the amazing story of blood transfusion: its development and the struggle of three innovative and courageous Canadian surgeons who brought blood to a bleeding Europe.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".