MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056811539 · doi:10.1353/bhm.2013.0026

Negotiating Technologies in Surgery: The Controversy about Surgical Gloves in the 1890s

2013· article· en· W2056811539 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the history of medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedical History and Innovations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationContradictionMedicinePerspective (graphical)GermanControl (management)SurgeryElement (criminal law)Engineering ethicsPolitical scienceLawComputer scienceEngineeringHistoryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the controversial discussions about surgical gloves in the German-language countries in the 1890s. Analyzing the controversy as a contradiction between two important strategies of modern surgery, manual control and aseptic control, it looks at the various ways surgeons dealt with the conflict. Most important, they tried to resolve the problem by designing gloves that reconciled the two conflicting control strategies. This perspective helps to better understand the lengthy process of negotiation and the detailed discussions in the decades before surgical gloves became a standard element of modern operating equipment.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.176 · 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