Characteristics and Lasting Contributions of 19th-Century American Neurologists
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project sought to identify characteristics and lasting contributions of 19th-century members of the American Neurological Association (ANA). Members were categorized by elite status, citation frequency, founder or charter member, elected to honorary membership, published a monograph on a neurologic or psychiatric topic, born in the United States or Canada, and received any medical training outside the United States or Canada. Citations to 19th-century publications in Science Citation Index were analyzed for the period 1974-1995. ANA membership was restrictive, but membership nevertheless increased dramatically in the first 25 years from its founding in 1875. 19th-century ANA members frequently served in a leadership capacity within the organization, published neurologic or psychiatric monographs, and received medical training abroad. Highly cited members were more likely to be instrumental in founding and developing the organization, and were likely to be recognized by their contemporaries as eminent. 19th-century ANA members made significant and lasting contributions in many areas of neurology and psychiatry. Articles with lasting relevance were early descriptions, points of comparison, and controversial articles.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it