MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044833105 · doi:10.1080/0964704x.2014.1000065

Alexander Robertson (1834–1908): Glasgow’s Pioneer Aphasiologist and Epileptologist

2015· article· en· W2044833105 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mervyn J. Eadie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the History of the Neurosciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurology and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsAphasiaDisconnectionPsychologyPhenomenonNeuroscienceInterpretation (philosophy)EpileptogenesisConsciousnessPsychoanalysisEpilepsyLinguisticsPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alexander Robertson (1834-1908) was a Glasgow physician whose professional career was involved mainly with institutional-based practice but who published significant insights into the anatomical background to aphasia (1867) and the mechanisms of focal epileptogenesis (1869). His aphasiology ideas, including his suggestion that disconnection between cerebral centers involved in speech was responsible for the phenomenon, made him one of the earliest members of the late-nineteenth-century school of aphasia diagram makers. His view of epileptogenesis was that contralateral convulsing arose from irritation in a local area of pathology on the surface of the cerebral cortex after the irritation spread to a cortical motor center and then down the motor pathway to the striatum, while spreading within the cortex itself caused loss of consciousness. This interpretation contains much of the essence of the present-day understanding of cortical epileptogenesis. The origin of this interpretation is often attributed to John Hughlings Jackson, but Robertson published the idea in full a year or two prior to Jackson. However, Robertson's original insights were hardly noticed at the time they were published and have since almost entirely been ignored.

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)0.003
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.153 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the History of the NeurosciencesSame topicNeurology and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207