MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063412635 · doi:10.1136/jramc-147-03-06

Rescue of the Remnants: The British Emergency Medical Relief Operation in Belsen Camp 1945

2001· review· en· W2063412635 on OpenAlexaff
Elly Trepman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Army Medical Corps · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Conflict Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical emergencyEmergency medical servicesMedicineHistoryEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The British Army liberated the German concentration camp at Belsen on April 15, 1945. The thousands of inmates (estimates range from 60,000 to 78,900 inmates), mostly Jews from eastern Europe, were dying at a rate of 500-600 per day from disease, and many more were being killed by the German guards and co-workers. Diseases prevalent included typhus, tuberculosis, nutritional and infective diarrhoea, severe malnutrition and starvation, and others. Despite huge obstacles including the ongoing war effort, shortages of supplies, and limited numbers of workers, a relief operation was rapidly organized to control the typhus epidemic and salvage as many inmates as possible. The 10,000 emaciated corpses which had been lying all over the camp were collected and buried in mass graves. Inmates were disinfected with D.D.T., scrubbed in a "human laundry," and evacuated from the typhus-ridden Horror Camp (Camp 1) to a hospital organized in the barracks of the Panzer Training School (Camp 2). Feeding of the inmates was carefully regulated, and some basic medical treatment organized. The relief operation was performed by British Army units, detachments of the British Red Cross, British and Belgian medical students, and other volunteers including those from among the less debilitated inmates. Although 13,000 inmates died after the liberation despite the relief operation, thousands of others were rescued.

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 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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Royal Army Medical CorpsSame topicHealth and Conflict StudiesFrench-language works237,207