MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025356882 · doi:10.1353/bhm.2001.0181

Constructing History in Biography: A Symposium on William Osler: A Life in Medicine : Introduction

2001· article· en· W2025356882 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joseph W. Lella

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the history of medicine · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistory of Medical Practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBLISSBiographyContext (archaeology)ClassicsHistoryFaithSubject (documents)Reading (process)YesterdayEnvironmental ethicsArt historyLawPhilosophyPolitical scienceLibrary scienceTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

William Osler's medical career spanned two centuries and three nations: Canada, the United States, and Great Britain. Though not an especially noted scientist, he was an innovative teacher, a professional organizer, and mentor and colleague to many grateful--indeed, sometimes adoring--students and colleagues, some of whom became influential in the Anglo-Saxon medical world. Since his death, Osler has been the subject of an enormous body of literature, fed by numerous Osler societies throughout the world. Among these is the American Osler Society, upon whose recent review panel this symposium is based. In it, three Oslerians--Philip Teigen, Earl Nation, and Joseph Lella--use Michael Bliss's book as the starting point for reading historical themes in Osler's life from their own standpoints. Bliss responds to these views by stressing the factual underpinnings of his book and by interpreting it, the first major biography of Osler since Cushing, in the context of his other works in the history of medicine as another study of the emergence of "health care as a secular replacement for traditional religious faith in the supernatural."

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0090.014
Scholarly communication0.0110.010
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.248
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the history of medicineSame topicHistory of Medical PracticeFrench-language works237,207