MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030660937 · doi:10.1353/bhm.2012.0025

Eugenics Visualized: The Exhibit of the Third International Congress of Eugenics, 1932

2012· article· en· W2030660937 on OpenAlexaff
Devon Stillwell

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the history of medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedical History and Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEugenicsIdeologyContext (archaeology)SociologyEnvironmental ethicsLawEpistemologyPoliticsPolitical sciencePhilosophyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY: This article investigates the exhibit of the Third International Congress of Eugenics, which was organized by Harry Hamilton Laughlin and showcased at the American Museum of Natural History in 1932. It argues that the exhibit's displays shaped popular eugenic ideology by connecting particular eugenic principles to specific visual representations that were experienced in relation to binaries such as the artistically traditional and the modern, the classical and the grotesque, and the scientific and the spectacle (or the "freak" and the medical specimen). These dichotomies were, in turn, experienced within the context of the exhibit's overall theme of eugenics as anchored in the past and the future and concern over the differential birthrate. The exhibit to the Third Congress provides insight into growing tensions within the eugenics movement of the 1930s, the importance of positive eugenics, the aesthetics of heredity, and how the "scientific truths" of a given era are publicized and perpetuated.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.002

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.225 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the history of medicineSame topicMedical History and ResearchFrench-language works237,207